THE  EGYPTIAN  QUESTION 


EXTRACTS  FROM 
THE  CONGRESSIONAL  RECORD 

INSERTED  BY 

HON.  ROBERT  L.  OWEN 

OF  OKLAHOMA 

IN  THE 

SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


THURSDAY,  OCTOBER  30,  1919 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1919 


T' 


147311—20000 


THE  EGYPTIAN  QUESTION, 


Mr.  OWEN.  Mr.  President,  some  days  ago,  October  15,  I 
Introduced  a  resolution  bearing  on  the  treaty  of  peace  with 
Germany.  I  ask  to  have  inserted  in  the  FIecokd  a  memorandum 
of  a  letter  fiorn  King  George  to  the  Sultan  of  Egypt,  which  I 
will  not  take  the  time  to  read,  together  with  a  cablegram  to 
Mahmoud  Pasha  from  Mahmoud  Soliman  Pasha,  which  I  shall 
not  take  the  time  to  read,  bearing  upon  the  same  question,  to¬ 
gether  with  some  data  submitted  by  the  Egyptian  delegation 
here,  which  I, ask,  without  reading,  to  have  also  printed  in 
the  Recoro. 

There  being  no  objection,  the  matter  referred  to  was  ordered 
to  he  printed  in  the  Record,  as  follows: 

“  Resolved,  That  the  United  States  in  ratifying  the  covenant 
of  the  league  of  nations  does  not  intend  to  be  understood  as 
modifying  in  any  degree  the  obligations  entered  into  by  the 
United  States  and  the  Entente  Allies  in  the  agreement  of  No¬ 
vember  5,  iniS.  upon  which  as  a  basis  the  German  Em[)ire  laid 
down  its  arms.  The  United  States  regards  that  contract  to 
carry  out  the  principles  set  forth  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States  on  January  S,  1917,  and  in  subsequent  addresses,  as  a 
world  agreement,  binding  on  the  great  nations  which  entered 
into  it.  anil  that  the  t'rincijtles  there  set  forth  will  be  carried 
out  in  due  time  through  the  mechanism  provided  in  the  cove¬ 
nant,  and  that  article  2H.  paragraph  (b),  pledging  tlie  meml)ers 
of  the  league  to  undertake  to  secure  just  treatment  of  the 
native  lidiahitants  under  their  control,  involves  a  pledge  to 
carry  out  these  principles. 

“The  protectorate  which  Germany  recognizes  in  Great  Brit¬ 
ain  over  Egypt  is  understood  to  be  merely  a  means  through 
which  the  nominal  suzerainty  of  Turkey  over  Pjg>’pt  shall  be 
transferred  to  the  Egyiitian  people  and  shall  not  be  construed 
as  a  recognition  by  the  United  States  in  Great  Britain  of  any 
sovereign  rights  over  the  Egyptian  people  or  as  depriving  the 
peor»le  of  Egypt  of  any  of  their  rights  of  self-government. 

DATA  COMPILED  BY  EGYPTIAN  DELEGATION. 

Shall  Right  or  Might  Prevail? 

“  Eg.ypt  is  a  country  of  immense  wealth.  It  has  millions  of 
acres  of  agricultural  land  greater  in  value  per  acre  and  in  pro¬ 
ducing  power  than  any  other  country  in  the  world.  The  seizure 
of  Egypt  by  Great  Britain  adds  to  Britain’s  enormous  posses¬ 
sions  an  area  of  350,000  square  miles  and  a  population  of 
13,000,000  people.  The  value  of  the  natural  resources  so  seized 
is  beyond  computation. 

“  Egypt  is  one  compact  whole — one  nation,  one  language. 
The  character  of  the  people,  their  conduct,  their  habits,  their 
sympathies,  and  their  inclinations  are  the  same  throughout  that 
country.  Because  of  geographic  situation,  however,  Eg.vpt  has 
attracted  the  avarice  of  colonizing  powers  more,  perhaps,  than 
any  other  country  in  the  world.  In  1798  the  French  under 
Napoleon  invaded  Egypt.  In  1801  the  French  were  expelled 
2  147311—20090 


3 


frora  E?:ypt.  In  1807  Great  Britain  attempted  to  Invade  Egypt, 
but  was  ejected  by  the  Egyptian  Army. 

"  Egy’pt  continued  to  be  a  Turkish  Province  until  1831,  when 
war  broke  out  between  Egypt  and  Turkey,  and  the  Egyptian 
Army  was  victorious.  Constantinople  would  have  fallen  to  the 
Egyptians,  but  Great  Britain  and  France  interfered  in  order 
to  preserve  the  balance  of  power  and  the  Egyptians  were  com¬ 
pelled  to  give  up  the  full  fruits  of  their  victories. 

“  By  the  treaty  of  London  of  1840-41  Egy[)t  became  autono¬ 
mous,  subject  only  to  an  annual  tribute  to  Turkey  of  about 
$3,.o00.000.  The  Government  of  Egypt  could  maintain  an  army, 
contract  loans,  make  coimnercial  treaties,  and  enter  Into  Inter¬ 
national  agreements.  For  all  practical  purposes  Egypt  was 
independent  and  free. 

“  In  1882  Groat  Britain  occupied  Egypt  ostensibly  to  protect 
the  Khedive  against  the  movement  for  popular  government,  and 
continued  to  occupy  the  counti'y,  against  the  protest  of  the  Egyp¬ 
tians,  under  tlie  protest  of  protecting  thepeoplefrom  the  Khedive. 

“  The  British  Government  from  the  time  of  occupation  up  to 
the  beginning  of  the  recent  war  promised  to  withdraw  the 
British  troops  from  Egypt.  Gladstone,  when  prime  minister, 
said,  ‘  If  one  pledge  can  be  more  solemn  and  sacred  than  an¬ 
other,  special  sacredness  in  this  case  binds  us  to  withdraw  the 
British  troops  from  Egypt.’ 

“  Lord  Salisbury,  when  prime  minister  in  1889,  solemnly 
assured  Egypt  and  the  world  that  Egypt  would  never  be  i)laced 
under  a  British  ‘protectorate’  or  annexed  by  Great  Britain. 

“  Great  Britain  had  agreed  by  the  treaty  of  London  of 
1840-41  to  pr<ttect  the  autonomy  of  Egypt,  and  in  the  Anglo- 
French  agreement  of  April  8,  1904,  Great  Britain  dwhired  that 
It  had  no  intention  of  altering  the  political  status  of  Egypt. 

“  Afer  the  beginning  of  the  war,  and  on  December  IS,  1914, 
Great  Britain  dei)osed  the  Khedive  and  appointed  a  sultan  of 
her  own  choosing  to  the  throne  of  Egj'pt.  On  the  same  date 
Great  Britain  proclalmetl  the  .so-called  protectorate  over  Egypt, 
announcing,  however,  at  the  same  time  that  it  was  merely  for 
the  period  of  the  war  and  only  a  step  toward  the  Independence 
of  Egypt. 

“  King  George,  in  a  letter  which  was  widely  circulated 
throughout  Egypt  and  which  wms  published  in  the  London 
Times  of  December  21,  1914,  said : 

“  ‘  *  «  «  I  feel  convinced  that  you  will  be  able,  with  the 

cooperation  of  your  mini.sters  and  the  protection  of  Great 
Britain,  to  overcome  all  influences  which  are  seeking  to  destroy 
the  independence  of  Epypt,  *  *  *.’ 

“This  change  of  status  being  announced  at  the  time  as  a 
merely  temporary  war  measure,  was  assumed  by  the  Egyptians 
to  be  such.  The  Egyptians  with  absolute  unanimity  took  sides 
with  the  Allies  and  served  to  make,  as  they  believed,  the  world 
safe  for  democracy  and  for  the  right  of  national  self-determina¬ 
tion  in  all  peoj)les. 

“  When  the  armistice  was  signed  the  Egyptians  rejoiced  in  the 
thought  that  the  day  of  their  deliverance  had  come,  and  that 
henceforth  they  would  enjoy  that  right  of  national  self-deter¬ 
mination  proclaimed  by  President  Wilson.  A  commission  was 
appointed  by  the  Egyptian  people  to  attend  the  peace  conference, 
where  their  independence  and  sovereignty  could  be  consecrated 
and  acknov.dedged  by  the  powers. 

147311—20090 


4 


“In  violfilion  of  its  plod, sees  of  independence  to  the  Egyptian 
people,  and  regardless  of  the  fact  that  the  Egyptian  people  had 
served  and  sacriticefi  in  the  allied  cause,  Great  Britain  arresp'd 
four  of  the  leading  citizens  of  Egypt,  who  had  been  selected  by 
the  Egyptian  people  to  go  to  F’aris,  and  these  four  were  torn  from 
their  homes  without  warning  ami  deported  to  Malta,  where  they 
were  thrown  into  a  military  prison. 

“  M'lien  the  Egyptian  people  learned  of  this  act  of  perBdy  on 
the  part  of  Great  Britain  their  indignation  was  intense.  Na¬ 
tional  .self-determination  demonstrations  were  held  throughout 
Egypt.  Great  Britain  answereil  these  deinonstrarions  fur  na¬ 
tional  self-determination,  the  principle  for  which  Great  Britain 
hail  ostensibly  fought  in  the  war.  by  firing  machine  guns  into 
crowds  of  these  peaceable  and  unarmed,  liberty -.seeking  people, 
killing  more  than  a  thou.sand  an<l  wounding  vastly  mon». 

“  Egyptians  who  dared  to  as.sert  in  public  that  Egypt  should 
have  the  right  of  national  self-iletermination  were  put  in  prison. 
The  cry  for  liberty  by  an  Egyptian  was  answered  by  British 
military  punishment. 

“  If  present  conditions  are  permitted  to  continue,  liberty  is 
dead  to  EgA’pt,  and  the  right  of  self-detertnination  to  all  [leoples, 
for  which  Americans  believed  they  were  fighting,  has  been  imide 
a  hollow  mockery. 

“  Gen.  Allenby  finally,  by  force  of  Eg\’ptian  public  opinion,  ad- 
vi.sed  the  British  (Government  to  permit  the  commi.ssion  to  pro- 
ceeil  to  Baris.  Wlien  the  commission  reached  Baris  they  asked 
for  a  hearing  before  the  peace  conference.  This  was  denied 
them.  Tliey  wrote  to  Bresident  Wilson  and  asked  for  a  con¬ 
ference  with  Idm.  Their  appeals  were  iti  vain. 

“Some  days  after  the  commission  reached  Baris  the  so-called 
protectorate  of  Great  Britain  over  Egwpt  was  ‘  recogrdzi^l.’  The 
holding  of  Kgypt  by  Great  Britain  is  not  a  protectorate  in  the 
legal  sense  of  the  word,  hut  under  guise  of  a  [irotectorate  (Great 
Britain  Is  holding  Egypt  to-day  as  a  subject  and  comjjuered 
nation. 

“  The  approval  of  this  so-called  protectorate  would  be  accepted 
by  the  British  (Government  as  api*roval  of  the  present  holding  of 
Egypt  by  Great  Britain  as  spoils  of  war  and  would  rivet  the 
chains  of  subject  slavery  upon  the  Egji»rian  people. 

“  In  a  statement  i.ssued  liy  the  British  Embassy  at  Washington, 
Sei)tember  2,  15)10,  and  which  was  puhlisiied  in  the  daily  press, 
the  emha.s.sy  stated  : 

“‘Great  Britain  has  carefully  avoided  destroying  the  sov¬ 
ereignty  of  Egypt.’ 

“A  few  days  later  the  British  foreign  ofiice  in  London  gave 
an  interview  to  the  International  News  Service,  claiming  to 
have  succeeded  to  Turkish  nominal  suzerainty  over  Egypt. 
Great  Britain  is  claiming  both  a  protectorate  and  a  sovereignty 
over  Egypt  at  the  same  time. 

“  Great  Biitain  is  holding  Egypt  to-day  not  by  right  but 
by  might  of  military  force.  Great  Britain’s  seizure  of  Egypt 
is  out  of  keeping  with  the  world’s  new  temper.  Only  by  ihe 
exercise  of  the  gospel  of  military  force  can  the  continued 
holdirig  of  Egypt  by  Great  Britain  he  maintained.  Only  in 
violation  of  its  sacred  pledges  and  treaty  obligations  can  Great 
Britain  assert  dominion  over  the  people  of  Egypt. 

“On  November  10,  1914,  Lloyd-George  in  a  speech  called  the 
world  to  witness  Ihe  utter  unselfishness  of  their  part  in  the 
147311—20090 


/ 


war.  ‘As  the  Lord  liveth,’  he  declared,  ‘England  does  not 
want  one  yard  of  territory.  We  are  in  this  war  from  motives 
of  pure  chivalry  to  guard  the  weak.’  Shall  Egypt  be  handed 
over  to  Great  Britain  in  violation  of  the  great  principles  for 
which  Americans,  Egyptians,  and  the  Allies  fought?  How  can 
It  be  justly  said  that  Egypt  is  outside  the  realm  of  the  prin¬ 
ciples  of  the  14  points  and  that  Great  Britain  may  deny  the 
right  of  self-determination  to  Egypt? 

“The  Egyptian  people  are  liberty  loving  and  peaceful.  They 
have  not  interfered  with  other  nations  and  they  ask  now  that 
Great  Britain  not  be  allowed  to  destroy  the  inalienable  right 
of  the  Egyptian  people  to  liberty,  and  the  right  to  have  their 
own  government,  controlled  by  their  own  people.” 

BRITISH  PLEDGES. 

“  In  INIay,  1882,  a  British  fleet  appeared  before  Alexandria, 
In  June,  1882,  a  .serious  disturbance  took  place  in  Alexandria, 
and  a  number  of  Europeans  were  killed.  On  July  11  and  12, 
1882,  Alexandria  was  bombarded  by  the  British  fleet  and  Brit¬ 
ish  soldiers  began  to  occupy  Egypt.  Great  Britain  pledged  the 
Egj’ptian  Government  and  the  world  that  this  occupation  would 
be  only  temporary.  The  solemn  pledges  to  this  effect  made  by 
England  are  evidenced  by  the  following  documents: 

“  1.  Lord  Gi’anville’s  dispatch,  Movember  4,  1881  (Egypt, 
No.  1  (1882),  pp.  2,  3),  said: 

“  ‘  The  policy  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  toward  Egypt 
has  no  other  aim  than  the  prosperity  of  the  country,  and  its 
full  enjoyment  of  that  liberty  which  it  has  obtained  under 
successive  Armans  of  the  Sultan.  ❖=!=>!=  ^  j-qq 

clearly  understood  that  England  desires  no  partisan  ministry 
in  Egypt.  In  the  opinion  of  Her  Maje.sty’s  Government  a 
partisan  ministry  founded  on  the  support  of  a  foreign  power, 
or  upon  the  personal  influence  of  a  foreign  diplomatic  agent. 
Is  neither  calculated  to  be  of  service  to  the  country  it  admin¬ 
isters  nor  to  that  in  whose  interest  it  is  supposed  to  be 
maintained.’ 

“  2.  In  the  protocol  signed  by  Lord  Dufferin,  together  with 
the  representatives  of  the  live  other  great  powers,  June  25, 
1882  (Egypt,  No.  17  (1882),  p.  33),  it  was  provided: 

“  ‘  The  Government  represented  by  the  undersigned  engaged 
themselves,  in  any  arrangement  which  may  be  made  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  their  concerted  action  for  the  regulation  of  the 
affairs  of  Egypt,  not  to  seek  any  territorial  advantage,  nor  any 
concession  of  any  exclusive  privilege,  nor  any  commercial  ad¬ 
vantage  for  their  subjects  other  than  those  which  any  other 
nation  can  equally  obtain.’  [Italics  ours.] 

“  3.  Sir  Beauchamp  Seymour,  in  a  communication  to  Khedive 
Tewfik,  Alexandria,  July  20,  1882,  publi.shed  in  the  Official 
Journal  of  July  28,  1882,  said: 

“  ‘  I,  admiral  commanding  the  British  fleet,  think  it  opportune 
to  conlirm  without  delay  once  more  to  Your  Highness  that  the 
Government  of  Great  Britain  has  no  intention  of  making  the  con¬ 
quest  of  Egypt,  nor  of  injuring  in  any  way  the  religion  and  lib¬ 
erties  of  the  Egyptians.  It  has  for  its  sole  object  to  protect  Your 
Highness  and  the  Egyptian  people  against  rebels.'  [Italics 
ours.] 

147311—20000 


6 


“  4.  Sir  Cliai’les  Dilke,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  July  25, 18S2, 
said : 

“  ‘  It  is  the  desire  of  Her  Majesty’s  Covernment,  after  reliev- 
hiR  Esypt  from  military  tyranny,  to  leave  the  people  to  manage 
their  own  affairs.  *  *  *  We  believe  that  it  is  better  for  the 

interests  of  their  country,  as  well  as  for  the  interests  of  Efrypt, 
that  E^ypt  should  be  governed  by  liberal  institutions  rather 
than  by  a  despotic  rule.  *  *  \\q  (jy  not  wish  to  impose  on 

Egypt  institutions  of  our  own  choice,  but  rather  to  leave  the 
clK)ice  of  Egyjjt,  free.  *  *  *  .  it  is  the  honorable  duty  of 

this  country  to  be  true  to  the  principles  of  free  imstitutions, 
which  are  our  glory.’  [Italics  ours.) 

“5.  The  Eight  Hon.  Mr.  W.  E.  Gladstone,  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  August  10,  1882,  said : 

1  can  go  so  far  as  to  answer  the  honorable  gentleman  when 
he  asks  me  whether  we  contemplate  an  imlelinite  occupation  of 
Egypt.  Vniloubtcdly  of  all  things  in  the  irorld,  that  is  a  thing 
which  we  are  not  going  to  do.  It  would  be  absolutely  at  vari¬ 
ance  with  all  the  principles  and  views  of  Her  Majesty’s  Govern¬ 
ment,  and  the  pledges  they  have  given  to  Kurope  and  icith  the 
views,  I  may  say.  of  Europe  itself.'  [Italics  ours.] 

“6.  Lord  Dufferin’s  dispatch,  December  10,  1882,  Egypt  No. 
2  (1888),  page  80,  stated: 

In  talking  to  the  various  persons  who  have  made  inquiries 
as  to  my  views  on  the  Egyptian  question  I  have  stated  that  we 
have  not  the  least  intention  of  preserving  the  authority  which 
has  thus  reverted  to  us.  #  *  *  it  was  our  intentit)n  so  to 

Conduct  our  relations  with  the  Egyptian  people  that  they  should 
•  -  naturally  regard  us  as  their  best  friemis  and  counsehns.  but 

that  we  did’not  propose  up(ju  that  account  arbitrarily  to  impose 
our  views  upon  them  or  to  hold  them  In  an  irritating  tutelage.’ 
[Italics  oui's. j 

“  7.  Lord  Granville,  December  29,  1882,  Egj’pt  No.  2  (1882), 
page  38,  oflicially  stated: 

You  should  intimate  to  the  Egj'ptian  Government  that  it  is 
the  desire  of  Her  Majesty’s  Government  to  withdratv  the  troops 
from  Egypt  as  soon  as  circumstances  permit,  that  such  with¬ 
drawal  will  probably  be  effected  from  time  to  time  as  the  se¬ 
curity  of  the  country  will  allow  it,  and  that  Her  Majesty’s  Gov¬ 
ernment  hope  that  the  time  will  be  very  short  during  which 
the  full  number  of  the  present  force  will  be  maintained.’  [Italics 
ours.) 

“  8.  Lord  Dufferin’s  dispatch,  February  6,  1883,  Egypt  No.  6 
(1883),  pages  41,  43,  stated: 

“  ‘  The  territory  of  the  Khedive  has  been  recognized  as  lying 
outside  the  sphere  of  European  warfare  and  international  jeal¬ 
ousies.  *=!••>!= 

“  ‘  The  Valley  of  the  Nile  could  not  be  administered  from 
London.  An  attempt  upon  our  part  to  engage  in  such  an  under¬ 
taking  would  at  once  render  us  objects  of  hatred  and  suspicion 
to  its  inhabitants.  Cairo  would  become  a  focus  of  foreign 
Intrigue  and  conspiracy  against  us,  and  we  should  soon  And  our¬ 
selves  forced  either  to  abandon  our  pretensions  under  dis¬ 
creditable  conditions  or  embark  upon  the  experiment  of  a  com¬ 
plete  acquisition  of  the  country.’ 

“  9.  Again,  at  page  83,  Lord  Diifferin  said : 

“  ‘  Had  I  been  commissioned  to  place  affairs  in  Egypt  on  the 
footing  of  an  Indian  subject  State  the  outlook  would  have  been 
147311—20090 


‘V 


f 

different.  The  masterful  band  of  a  resident  would  have  quickly 
bent  everything  to  his  will,  and  In  the  space  of  live  .years  we 
should  have  greatly  added  to  the  material  wealth  and  well¬ 
being  of  the  country  by  the  extension  of  its  cultivated  area  and 
the  consequent  expansion  of  its  revenue;  by  the  partial  if  not 
the  total  abolition  of  the  corvee  and  slavery;  the  establishment 
of  Justice  and  other  beueOeent  reforms.  But  the  Egyptians 
would  have  justly  considered  these  advantages  as  dearly  pur¬ 
chased  at  the  expense  of  their  domestic  independence.  More¬ 
over,  Her  Majesty's  (Jovennnent  have  pronounced  ayainst  such 
an  alternative.’  [Italics  ours. J 

“  10.  Mr.  Gladstone,  in  the  House  of  Commons  August  6, 

1883.  said: 

“‘The  other  powers  of  Europe  *  '•'  *  are  well  aware  of 

the  general  intentions  entertained  by  the  British  Government, 
intentions  which  may  be  subject,  of  course,  to  due  consideration 
of  that  state  of  circumstances,  but  Conceived  and  held  to  be 
in  the  nature  not  oidy  of  information  but  a  pledge  or  engage- 
inent.’  (Italics  ours.] 

“11.  Mr.  Gladstone,  in  the  House  of  Commons  August  9, 

1883,  sa  hi : 

“  *  The  uncertainty  there  may  be  in  some  portion  of  the  public 
mind  has  reference  to  those  desires  which  tend  toward  the 
permanent  occupation  of  Eg.vpt  and  its  incorporation  in  this 
Empire.  This  is  a  consummation  to  ivhich  tee  are  resolutely 
opposed  arid  loliich  ivc  icill  have  nothing  to  do  icith  bringing 
about.  1l’e  are  against  this  doctrine  of  annexation;  we  are 

against  everything  that  resembles  or  approaches  it;  and  ice  arc  \ 

against  all  language  that  tends  to  bring  about  its  expectation. 

He  arc  against  it  on  the  ground  of  the  interests  of  Hngland; 
ice  are  against  it  on  the  ground  of  our  duty  to  Egypt;  ice  are 
against  it  on  the  ground  of  the  specific  and  solemn  pledges  given 
to  the  world  in  the  most  solemn  manner  and  under  the  most 
critical  circumstances,  pledges  which  have  earned  for  us  the 
confidence  of  Europe  at  large  during  the  course  of  ditlicult  and 
delicate  operations,  and  which,  if  one  pledge  can  be  more  solemn 
and  sacred  than  another,  special  sacredness  in  this  case  binds 
Us  to  observe.  We  are  also  sensible  that  occupation  prolonged 
beyond  a  certain  point  may  tend  to  annexation,  and  consequently 
it  is  our  object  to  take  the  greatest  care  that  the  occupation 
does  not  gradually  take  a  permanent  character,  *  *  We 

can  not  name  a  day  and  do  not  undertake  to  name  a  day  for 
our  final  withdraicul,  but  no  effort  shall  be  wanting  on  our  part 
to  bring  about  that  withdrawal  as  early  as  possible.  [Italics 
ours.] 

“  12.  Lord  Granville’s  dispatch,  June  10,  18S-J,  Egypt  No.  23 
(1884),  page  13,  stated: 

“  ‘  Her  Majesty’s  Goverunient  *  *  «  are  willing  that  the 

withdrawal  of  the  troops  shall  take  place  at  the  beginning  of  the 
year  1888,  provided  that  the  powers  are  then  of  opinion  that  such 
withdrawal  c:ui  take  place  without  risk  to  peace  and  order.’ 

“  13.  I.ord  Derby,  iu  the  House  of  Lords,  February  26,  1885, 
said : 

“  ‘  From  the  first  we  have  steadily  kept  in  view  the  fact  that 
our  occupation  was  temporary  and  provisional  only.  *  *  * 

We  do  not  propose  to  keep  Egypt  permanently.  *  *  *  On 

that  point  wc  arc  pledged  to  this  countiy  and  to  Europe;  and 
11731 1—20090 


8 


If  a  contrary  policy  Is  adopted  It  will  not  be  by  us.’  [Italics 
ours.  1 

“  14.  Lord  Sali.sbury,  in  tlie  House  of  Lords,  June  10,  1887, 
said : 

“  ‘  It  was  not  open  to  us  to  assume  the  protectorate  of  Efrj'^pt, 
because  Her  Majesty’s  Oovernmeut  have  again  and  again  pledged 
thenisrives  that  they  reovid  not  do  so.  •  *  •  My  noble 
fiiend  has  dwelt  upon  that  pledge,  and  he  does  us  no  more  than 
justice  when  he  exjiresses  his  ojiinion  that  It  Is  a  pledge  which 
has  been  constantly  present  to  our  minds.  •  *  *  It  was  un¬ 

doubtedly  the  fact  that  our  presence  in  Egypt,  unrecfvgnized  by 
any  convention  *  *  *  gave  the  subjects  of  the  Sultan  cause 

for  a  suspicion  which  vA'e  did  ni*t  deserve.’  [Italics  ours  ] 

“  1.5.  Lord  Salisbury,  in  the  House  of  Lords,  August  12,  1889, 
said : 

“  ‘  When  my  noble  friend  *  *  »  asks  us  to  convert  our¬ 
selves  from  guardians  Into  proprietors  *  •  *  and  to  declare 

our  stay  in  Egypt  permanent  *  »  »  j  must  say  I  tliink  my 
noble  friend  pays  an  insutliclent  regard  to  the  sanctity  of  the 
obligations  which  the  Clovernnient  of  the  Queen  hare  undertaken 
and  by  which  they  are  bound  to  abide.  In  sui-h  a  matter  we 
have  not  to  consider  what  is  the  most  convenieiit  or  what  is 
the  more  protitaljle  course;  we  have  t«>  consider  the  course  to 
which  we  are  hound  by  our  oicn  obligations  and  by  European 
law.'  [  Italics  ours.  1 

“  16.  Mr.  Gladstone,  In  the  House  of  Commons,  May  1,  1893, 
said ; 

“‘I  can  not  do  otherwise  than  express  my  gen<‘ral  concnr- 
ren('e  •  •  *  that  the  occutiatlon  of  Egypt  is  In  the  nature  of 

a  luirden  and  difliculty,  and  that  the  pertuanent  occupation  of 
that  country  would  not  be  agreeable  to  our  traditional  policy, 
and  that  It  would  not  tie  consistent  with  our  gcuMi  faith  toward 
the  Suzerain  power,  while  it  would  be  contrary  to  tlie  laws  of 
Euroiie.  •  *  •  j  certaitdy  shall  not  set  up  the  doctrine  that 

we  have  discfiveretl  a  duty  wfiicli  etiaides  us  to  set  aside  tlie 
pledges  into  whicli  we  have  so  freely  entered. 
thing  we  can  not  do  wdlh  perfect  honor  is  either  to  deny  that 
we  are  under  engagements  which  preclude  the  idea  of  an  indefi¬ 
nite  occupation,  or  so  to  construe  tiiat  Indetinlte  occupation  as 
to  hartifier  tlie  engagements  that  we  are  under  by  collateral  con¬ 
siderations.’  [Italics  ours.] 

“  17.  Ttie  text  of  the  Anglo-French  agreement  of  April  8,  1904, 
provhles ; 

“  ‘  Tlie  Government  of  His  Majesty  declares  that  it  has  no  in¬ 
tention  of  alTering  the  politiciil  status  of  Egyyit.’ 

“  IS.  Lord  Cromer’s  report,  March  3,  1907,  Egypt  No.  1  (1907), 
page  2,  stated  : 

“‘There  are  iiisuperahle  objections  to  the  assumpition  of  a 
British  protectorate  over  Egypt.  It  would  involve  a  change 
in  the  fMilirical  status  of  the  country.  Now,  in  Article  1  of  the 
Anglo-French  agreement  of  the  8rh  April,  1904,  the  British 
Government  have  explicitly  declared  that  they  have  no  inten¬ 
tion  of  altering  the  political  status  of  Eg.vpt.’ 

“19.  In  an  interview  with  r>r.  Nimr,  editor  of  the  Mokaffam, 
October  24,  1908,  acknowle<lged  as  official  by  Sir  E.  Grey  in 
the  House  of  Commons,  Sir  Elilon  Gorst  said : 

“  ‘  It  has  been  said  that  Great  Britain  proposes  shortly  to 
proclaim  tlie  protectorate  or  the  annexation  of  Egypt  to  the 
147311—20000 


9 


British  Empire.  Will  Sir  Eldon  Gorst  permit  me  to  ask  him 
whether  this  rumor  is  well  founded  or  not?  ’ 

“  Sir  Eldon  Gorst  answered  : 

“  ‘  The  rumor  has  no  foundation,  and  you  may  contradict  it 
categorically.  Great  Britain  has  engaged  herself  by  official 
agreements  with  Turkey  and  the  European  Powers  to  respect 
the  suzerainty  of  the  Sultan  in  Egypt.  She  will  keep  her  en¬ 
gagements,  which,  moreover,  she  reiterated  in  1904  at  the  time 
of  the  conclusion  of  the  Anglo-French  agreement.  England 
stipulated  in  that  agreement  that  she  has  no  intention  to  change 
the  political  situation  in  Egypt.  Neither  the  people  nor  the 
Goveimment  wish  to  rid  themselves  of  these  engagements.’ 

“20.  Sir  Eldon  Gorst’s  report,  March  27,  1909,  Egypt  No.  1 
(1909),  page  1.  stated: 

“  ‘  There  exists  among  the  better-educated  sections  of  society 
a  limited  but  gradually  increasing  class  which’  interests  itself 
in  matters  pertaining  to  the  government  and  administration  of 
the  country.  This  class  aspires  quite  rightly  to  help  in  bringing 
about  the  day  when  Egypt  will  be  al)Ie  to  govern  herself  without 
outside  assistance.  This  is  also  the  end  to  which  British  policy 
is  directed,  and  there  need  be  no  antagonism  or  principle  be¬ 
tween  the  Egyptian  and  English  reforming  elements.’ 

“21.  In  the  same  report,  at  page  48,  Sir  Eldon  Gorst  said: 

“  ‘  Since  the  commencement  of  the  occupation  the  policy  ap¬ 
proved  by  the  British  Government  has  never  varied,  and  its 
fundamental  idea  has  been  to  prepare  the  Egyptians  for  self- 
g(vvernment  while  helping  them  in  the  meantime  to  enjoy  the 
benefit  of  good  government.’ 

“  22.  Sir  Eldon  Gorst’s  report,  March  26,  1910,  Egypt  No.  1 
(1910),  page  51,  stated: 

“  ‘  Britisii  policy  in  Egypt  in  no  way  differs  from  that  fol¬ 
lowed  by  Great  Britain  all  over  the  world  toward  countries 
under  her  influence,  namely,  to  place  before  all  else  the  welfare 
of  their  populations.’ 

“  23.  Sir  Edward  Grey,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  August, 

1914,  said : 

England  stretches  out  her  hand  to  any  nation  whose  safety 
or  independence  may  be  threatened  or  compromised  by  any 
aggressor.’ 

“  24.  Former  Premier  Balfour,  speaking  for  the  Government 
at  Guild  Hall,  on  November  19,  1914,  declared: 

“  ‘  We  fight  not  for  ourselves  alone  hut  for  civilization  drawn 
to  the  cause  of  small  Stares,  the  cause  of  all  those  countries 
which  desire  to  develop  their  own  civilization  in  their  owm  way, 
following  their  owm  ideals  without  interference  from  any  insolent 
and  unauthorized  aggressor.’ 

“  25.  Premier  Asquith,  speaking  at  Guild  Hall,  November  9, 

1915,  asserted : 

“  ‘  We  shall  not  pause  or  falter  until  we  have  secured  for  the 
smaller  States  their  charter  of  independence  and  for  the  world 
at  large  its  final  emancipation  from  the  reign  of  force.’ 

“  26.  And,  again.  Premier  Asquith,  on  November  9,  1916,  de¬ 
clared  : 

“  ‘  This  is  h  wmr,  among  other  things — perhaps  I  may  say  pri¬ 
marily — a  wmr  for  the  emancipation  of  the  smaller  States. 
*  *  *  Peace  when  it  comes,  must  be  such  as  wdll  build  upon 

a  sure  and  stable  foundation  the  security  of  the  weak,  the  liber¬ 
ties  of  Europe,  and  a  free  future  for  the  world.’ 

147311—20000 


10 


“27.  Premier  LIoyd-George,  on  June  20,  1917,  said: 

“‘In  my  .iudgment  tliLs  war  will  come  to  an  end  when  the 
allied  powers  have  reached  the  aims  which  they  set  out  to  attain 
when  they  accepted  the  challenge  thrown  down  by  Germany  to 
civilization.’ 

“  2S.  Asquith,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  on  December  20,  1917, 
said : 

“  ‘  We  ought  to  make  it  increasing  clear  by  every  possible 
means  that  the  only  ends  we  are  fighting  for  are  liberty  and 
ju.stice  for  the  whole  world,  through  a  confederation  of  great 
and  small  States,  all  to  possess  equal  richts.  A  league  of  na¬ 
tions  is  the  ideal  for  which  we  are  fighting,  and  we  shall  con¬ 
tinue  fighting  for  it  with  a  clear  conscience,  clean  hands,  and  an 
unwavering  heart.’ 

“After  the  beginning  of  the  World  War.  and  on  December  IS, 
1914,  Great  Britain  proclaimed  a  so-called  protectorate  over 
Egyiit.  The  proclamation  seizing  Egypt  and  placing  Egypt  un¬ 
der  the  British  flag  is  puldished  in  the  Loudon  Times  of  Decem¬ 
ber  19,  1914,  page  8,  column  3.  It  reads: 

“‘in  view  of  the  action  of  his  highness  Abbas  Helmi  Pasha, 
lately  Khedive  of  Egypt,  who  has  adhered  to  the  King’s  ene¬ 
mies.  IJin  Majesty’s  Government  has  seen  fit  to  depose  him  from 
the  khedirute,  and  that  high  dignity  has  been  offered,  with  the 
title  of  Sultan  of  Egypt,  to  his  highness  Prince  Hussein  Gamel 
Pasha,  eldest  living  Prince  of  the  family  of  IMehemet  Ali,  and 
hits  been  accepted  by  him, 

“‘The  King  has  been  pleased  to  approve  the  appointment  of 
Prince  Hussein  to  an  honorary  Knight  Grand  Cro.ss  of  the  Order 
of  the  Bath  on  the  occasion  of  his  accession  to  the  sultanate.’ 
[Italics  otir.s. ] 

“The  London  Times,  in  the  is.sue  of  December  19.  1914,  had 
large  headlines  saying.  ‘Egypt  under  the  British  flag,’  But  the 
Time.s,  in  an  editorial  in  the  i.ssue  of  same  date,  with  character¬ 
istic  British  diplomacy,  naively  said  : 

“  ‘All  that  is  desired  now  is  to  defend  Eg^’pt  against  attack 
and  to  keep  the  internal  administration  running  smoothly. 
Other  questions  can  wait  until  peace  is  restored,  as  Lord  Cromer 
implies  in  the  letter  we  published  to-day.  *  *  -1=  it  is  purely 

a  practical  administrative  step,  dictated  by  the  appearance  of 
Turkey  as  a  belligerent.’ 

“  It  will  be  noted  that  the  seizure  was  sought  to  be  justified 
only  as  a  protection  to  Egypt  against  Turkish  aggression.  The 
truth  is  that  under  the  guise  of  a  ‘  i)rotectorate  ’  Great  Britain 
seized  Egypt  and  swept  away  every  vestige  of  Eg^'ptian  freedom 
and  indef»endence.  But  the  people  of  Egypt  did  not  realize  at 
that  time  the  full  meaning  of  this  action  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain.  Tliey  were  told  that  it  was  a  step  toward  the  inde¬ 
pendence  of  Egypt.  Plis  Majesty  King  George,  in  a  letter  to  the 
Sultan  whom  he  had  appointed  to  rule  over  Egjpt,  which  letter 
was  widely  circulated  throughout  Egypt  and  was  published  In 
the  Loudon  Times  of  date  December  21,  1914,  said: 

I  fggi  convinced  that  you  will  be  able,  with  the 
cooperation  of  your  ministers  and  the  protectorate  of  Great 
Britain,  to  overcome  all  influences  which  are  seeking  to  destroy 
the  independence  of  Egypt.  *  *  *  ’  [Italics  ours.] 
147811—20090 


11 


TREATMENT  OF  EGYPTIAN  DELEGATES  TO 
PEACE  CONFERENCE. 

LETTER  PROM  THE  CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  EGYPTIAN  DELEGA¬ 
TION  TO  SIR  REGINALD  WINGATE,  BRITISH  HIGH  COMMIS¬ 
SIONER  TO  EGYPT: 

[From  the  EsyRtiaii  White  Book,  p.  19.] 

“  ‘  I  addres.'^ed  to  British  headquarters  on  the  20th  instant 
(November)  a  letter  in  which  1  requested  for  my  colleague  and 
myself  the  permission  necessary  for  voyage.  *  *  *  \Ve  have 
just  received  a  letter  from  the  military  authorities  dated  to-day, 
informing  us  that  dlfhculties  have  arisen  which  have  prevented 
them  from  responding  before  and  that  as  soon  as  they  are 
smoothed  out  we  shall  receive  on  answer.  *  *  *  \Ve  I’ely 
upon  the  traditions  of  Great  Britain.  The  British  have  not 
ceased  to  give  to  the  world  examples  of  the  devotion  to  the 
principles  of  individual  liberty.  Will  not  our  request  for  pass¬ 
ports  receive  a  quick  and  favorable  response?’ 

“  To  this  the  following  letter  was  received  on  December  1, 
1918,  page  21 : 

“  ‘  I  am  directed  by  his  excellency,  the  high  commissioner,  to 
acknowledge  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  29th  u’timo  and  to 
inform  you  in  reply  that  after  reference  to  His  Majesty’s  Gov¬ 
ernment.  his  excellency  feels  unable  to  make  any  representations 
to  the  military  authorities  in  the  matter. 

“  ‘  I  am  to  add  that  should  you  desire  to  submit  suggestions  as 
to  the  government  of  Egyqjt,  not  lieing  inconsistent  with  the  policy 
of  His  Dlajesty’s  Government  as  already  declared,  such  sugges¬ 
tions  can  most  conveniently  bo  submitted  in  writing  to  his  ex¬ 
cellency.  In  this  connection  I  may  draw  your  attention  to  the 
communication  addressed  by  Sir  Mi  le  Cheetham,  proclamation 
of  protectorate  by  the  British  Government,  December  18,  1914, 
by  instruction  of  His  Majesty’s  Government  to  the  late  Sultan 
Hussein  on  the  occasion  of  his  accession.’ 

“  To  this  the  delegation  replied  on  December  3,  1918,  as  fol¬ 
lows.  page  22 : 

“  ‘  In  response  I  allow  myself  to  make  known  to  your  excel¬ 
lency  that  it  is  not  permitted,  neither  to  me  nor  to  any  member 
of  the  delegation,  to  make  jiroiiositions  which  are  not  in  ac¬ 
cordance  with  the  will  of  the  E,gyptian  nation  as  expressed  in 
the  mandates  that  have  been  given  us.  *  Forbidding 

our  departure  makes  il  usory  and  inoperative  the  mission  that  we 
have  accepted  by  will  of  the  people.  It  is  diflicult  to  conciliate 
this  situation  with  the  principles  of  liberty  and  justice  which  the 
victory  of  Great  Britain  and  her  allies  is  supposed  to  have  caused 
to  triumph.  This  victory  has  repeatedly  been  declared  to  be  for 
the  purpose  of  opening  a  new  ora  for  mankind  through  listening 
and  granting  the  just  demands  of  peoples.’ 

“  In  a  letter  of  protest  to  Premier  Lloyd-George  against  the 
virtual  imprisonment  of  the  Egyptian  delegation  at  Cairo,  the 
president  of  the  delegation  wrote  (p.  26)  : 

“  ‘  You  have  certainly  been  misinformed  of  the  circumstance.? 
that  accompanied  our  sequestration.  We  can  not  imi^ine  how 
such  proceedings  can  be  justified,  whether  from  the  point  of 
view  of  law  or  social  usage,  or  even  of  reasonable  policy,  and 
we  can  not  understand  how  the  British  can  apply  systematically 
so  humiliating  a  treatment  to  a  nation  with  the  rich  and 
glorious  past  of  ours.  Whatever  may  bo  its  present  weakness,  a 
147.S11 — 20090 


12 


nation  vvitli  a  civilization  so  ancient  will  always  preserve  before 
the  world  its  prestige  and  its  title  to  the  j^ratitude  of  the  world. 

“  ‘  Deny  the  ('ivi)ization  of  Egypt  in  spite  of  traces  that  attest 
Its  glorious  past;  deny  its  benefits  to  the  culture  of  the  world; 
suppose  that  it  is  only  an  agglomeration  of  savages  ruled  by  the 
brutality  of  their  instincts  and  without  law — do  you  refuse  to 
believe  that  Egypt  has  been  a  precious  aid  to  you?  The  enor¬ 
mous  sacrifice  that  we  have  made  during  the  war  in  blood  and 
treasure  for  the  triumph  of  your  cause,  were  indispensable  to 
you,  and  moreover  you  have  recognized  many  times  that  these 
sacrifices  were  one  of  the  principal  factors  of  victory  in  the 
Orient. 

« » *  •  Even  were  you  to  suppose  that  Egypt  bad  no 

civilization  and  that  Egypt  gave  yon  no  aid.  would  you  none 
the  less  reftise  to  ai>ply  to  her  the  principles  which  you  have 
agreed  with  President  Wilson  to  apply — impartial  justi<'e  on 
every  side  of  settlement  no  matter  whose  interest  is  crossed, 
and  not  only  impartial  justice  hut  also  the  satisfaction  of  several 
peoples  whose  fortunes  are  dealt  with?’ 

“  Egyptian  case  stated  as  follows  in  a  letter  from  Egyptian 
delegation  to  president  of  peace  conference  (p.  8<S)  : 

“‘For  more  than  five  months  tlie  British  authorities  refusetl 
•  to  allow  our  delegation  to  leave  for  Europe.  Public  oi)trdon, 
realizing  that  a  pe:iee  conference  had  assembled  gnd  was  taking 
up  the  problems  of  the  Near  East,  and  preparing  a  treaty  to 
present  to  (lermany.  became  aroused.  Tlie  Egyi»tians  insisted 
that  the  authorization  for  onr  dettarture  he  granted.  Standing 
by  the  people,  the  cabinet  presented  its  resignation,  which  was 
accepted.  The  answer  of  the  British  ndlitary  anthoritles  to 
the  official  reqiiest  of  the  Egyptian  (foveniment  was  to  order 
the  arrest  ami  det>ortation  to  Malta  of  the  [(resident  of  the 
delegation  and  of  three  of  his  colleagties.  Tliey  were  taken 
suddenly  from  their  homes  and  hurried  away  under  cover  of 
night.  There  was  no  trial,  and  they  were  not  informed  of  the 
reasons  for  tindr  arrest  and  deportation,  ^^’hen  they  learned 
of  this  act  of  violence,  totally  contrary  to  the  law,  there  were 
pe.-iceful  demonstrations  titnmghoiit  tlie  country.  In  wliich  all 
classes  took  part,  (rovernrnent  officials  and  the  personnel  of 
railways  and  otlier  fransr)orfafion  service,  deedded  to  strike. 
The  Englisti  thus  saw  that  In  the  entire  territory  of  Egypt  the 
people  of  all  classes.  Irrespective  of  religion,  were  against  their 
domination,  nevertheless  they  persisted  In  their  wish  to  govern 
b.v  force  of  arms  the  people  who  did  not  want  them. 

“‘The  manifestatioris  were  snpyiressed  by  machine  guns 
winch  mowed  down  dozens  of  unfortunate  demonstrators. 
Since  the  Egyptians  had  no  arms,  the  order  to  fire  was  totally 
11  nwa minted.  But  frdghtfnlness  could  not  stop  the  Eg^’yitians 
from  proceeding  in  their  derennination  to  make  an  effort  to 
obtain  tlietr  independence.  They  had  firm  faith  in  the  prin¬ 
ciples  of  President  Wilson  which  had  been  solemnly  accepted  by 
the  Entente  Allies.  They  felt  that  if  their  delegation  could 
only  get  to  Paris  that  justice  would  be  accorded  to  them.  So.  in 
spite  of  the  death  that  awaited  them,  they  advanced  in  groups 
in  ecstasy,  making  the  sacrifice  of  their  lives  to  the  cause  of 
liberty. 

“  ‘  Even  the  women  were  not  spared.  Wifhont  mentioning 
tliose  who  fell  on  the  field  of  honor  during  the  national  demon¬ 
strations,  we  can  cite  the  case  of  the  leading  ladies  of  Cairo 

147311 — 20090 


who  organized  under  the  leadership  of  the  wife  of  the  prime  min¬ 
ister,  a  demonsti’ation  to  protest  to  the  diplomatic  agencies 
against  the  murder  of  innocent  and  unarmed  citizens  in  the 
streets  of  Cairo.  Suddenly  they  were  surrounded  on  all  sides 
by  soldiers  vvho  pointed  their  guns  at  them.  This  inspired  one 
of  the  Egyptian  women  to  say  “  Make  of  me  if  you  will  a  second 
Miss  Cavell.”  They  were  kept  for  more  than  two  hours  in  the 
burning  sun.  In  proof  of  this  statement,  we  refer  to  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  the  agencies  of  the  United  States  and  Italy. 

“  ‘  The  British  authorities  in  Egypt  were  as  much  disturbed  as 
provoked  by  the  extent  of  the  movement  and  astonished  at  their 
powerlessness  to  stop  it.  It  was  then  that  the  spirit  of  venge¬ 
ance  got  the  better  of  them,  and  they  then  allowed  themselves 
to  indulge  in  the  most  disgraceful  excesses.  No  longer  content 
to  stop  the  demonstrations  by  means  of  rifles  and  machine  guns, 
they  were  guilty  in  several  places  of  rape,  of  assassination  of 
peaceful  villagers,  of  pillage,  of  arson — all  with  the  most  trifling 
pretext  or  even  without  pretext.  No  longer  was  it  a  question 
of  individual  abuses  committed  by  stray  soldiers  such  as  those 
of  which  the  minister  of  justice  and  the  president  of  the  legisla¬ 
tive  assembly  had  been  victims — no  longer  was  it  a  question  of 
blows  and  thefts  in  the  streets  of  Alexandria  atid  Cairo,  attacks 
began  to  be  made  by  strong  military  attachments  under  the, com¬ 
mand  of  their  ollicers  in  villages  as  well  as  cities.” 

BRITISH  VIEWS  ON  THE  EGYPTIAN  QUESTION. 

“  Sir  Thomas  Barclay,  vice  president  of  the  Institute  of  Inter¬ 
national  Law,  says  in  his  book,  ‘  New  Methods  of  Adjusting  In¬ 
ternational  disputes  and  the  Future’: 

“  ‘  Turning  to  another  aspect  of  international  matters,  it  is 
deeply  to  be  regretted  that  in  several  instances  in  our  own  time 
international  treaties  have  noo  lieen  regarded  by  public  opinion 
tvith  the  same  respect  as  international  awards.  The  attitude 
of  England  toward  Egypt,  of  Italy  toward  Turkey,  of  Russia 
toward  Persia,  of  France  toward  IMorocco,  and  especially  of 
Germany  toward  Belgium,  all  are  instances  of  eventual  bad 
faith,  however  justiliable  the  original  intervention  may  have  been 
in  the  one  case  or  unjustifiable  in  the  other.  They  are  ad<li- 
tional  evidence  of  the  ditflculty  of  preserving  the  peace  of  the 
world  even  by  the  most  solemn  of  international  umlertakings.’  ” 

[Excerpts  from  an  article  by  the  Right  Mon.  J.  M.  Robertson,  former 

member  of  the  British  Cabinet,  In  the  Contemporary  Review  of  May, 

1919,  under  the  title  of  “The  problem  of  Egypt,’’  said  in  part;] 

“A  rebellion  in  Egypt  in  1919  has  set  all  men  elsewhere  asking 
the  question,  Wliy?  In  1914  a  rebellion  was  planned  for  by  the 
German  enemy ;  iiotv  thoroughly  the  world  has  not  yet  been 
informed.  Had  it  broken  out,  the  causation  would  have  been 
sulliciently  obvious,  apart  from  any  known  native  discontent. 
But  that  rebellion  should  have  been  averted  then  and  should 
blaze  forth  now,  when  the  leagued  enemies  of  the  British  Em¬ 
pire  are  prostrate  in  defeat,  signifies  a  new  causation.  Wliat 
Is  it?  * 

“  Some  liave  put  the  hypothesis  that  Egyptian  Moslems  are 
alarmed  by  the  prospect  of  Jewish  domination  in  Palestine.  But 
even  if  there  were  not  express  testimony  that  the  Zionist  leaders 
have  maintained  thoroughly  friendly  relations  with  those  of  the 
147311—20090 


14 


Arabs,  such  nn  explanation  would  be  plainly  Inadequate.  Mos¬ 
lem  feeling  in  Egypt  about  Palestine  could  at  most  aggravate 
other  grounds  of  resentment;  it  could  not  motive  a  rebellion  in 
which  the  Moslems  of  Palestine  have  no  share.  Such  a  rising, 
exhibiting  no  signs  of  direction  from  without,  must  he  held  to 
signify  grievances  within  Egypt ;  and  new  and  special  grievances 
at  that.  The  disorders  reported  from  Cairo  on  April  14  appear 
to  involve  riots  directed  against  the  Armenians  and  Greeks;  and 
It  may  be  that  the  presence  of  a  number  of  Armenian  refugees 
has  heli)ed  to  foment  fanaticism.  But  these  attacks,  as  de¬ 
scribed,  have  the  appearance  of  being  a  sequel  to  the  previous 
insurrection  rather  than  a  key  to  its  causation.  Normally,  the 
IMosIems  in  Egypt  live  on  perfectly  good  terms  with  the  numer¬ 
ous  Greeks:  fanaticism  being  in  fact  not  a  normal  factor  in  the 
life  of  the  Egyptian  mass.  And  the  remarkable  statement  made 
by  Miss  M.  E.  Durham,  in  the  Daily  News,  of  April  2  would  seem 
to  yield  the  explanation.  Thus  It  runs: 

“  ‘  I  was  in  Egypt  from  November.  1915.  to  April,  1916.  and  can 
confirm  Dr.  Eladen  Guest  in  his  .statement  that  it  is  to  our  own 
treatment  of  the  Egyptians  that  we  owe  the  present  trouble. 
The  authorities  were  certainly  to  blame  in  landing  colonial 
troops  in  Eg>'pt  without  carefully  instructing  them  as  to  the 
pojiulation  they  would  meet  there.  So  Ignorant  wvre  numbers 
of  these  men  that  they  imagined  that  Egypt  was  English,  and 
the  nil  fives  of  the  land  were  intruders. 

“‘More  than  one  Australian  said  that  he  would  clear  the  lot 
out  If  he  had  his  w'ay.  They  treated  the  natives  with  cruelty 
and  coijtenqit.  In  the  canteen  in  which  1  worked  a  very  good 
native  servant  wms  kicked  and  knocked  about  simply  because 
he  did  not  under.stand  an  order  given  him  by  a  soldier.  An 
educated  native  In  the  towm  was  struclt  in  the  mouth  and  had 
his  Inlaid  w’a Iking  stick  forcibly  snatched  from  him  by  a  soldier 
who  wanted  It,  More  than  one  English  resident  said  to  me; 
“It  will  take  years  to  undo  the  harm  that  has  been  done  here 
by  the  army.”  Personally  I  felt  that  were  I  an  Egyptian  I 
should  have  spared  no  efl'orf  to  evict  the  British.  I  felt  ashamed 
of  my  country — bitterly  ashamed.  The  opinion  of  the  native  for 
the  soldier  was  amusingly  Illustrated  by  a  small  conversation 
hook,  one  phrase  of  which  was  to  the  effect:  “You  fool;  what 
for  you  si)end  all  your  money  on  beer?”  and  a  dialogue  with  a 
beggar  wdiich  ended:  "I  am  poor;  I  am  miserable,”  to  w’hich 
the  Briton  replied:  “Go  to  hell.” 

“  ‘  I  spoke  with  great  severity  frequently  to  the  soldiers, 
telling  them  that  by  their  conduct  they  were  proving  themselves 
the  enendes  of  England;  that  the  Germans  maltreated  the 
enemy,  but  that  they  were  attacking  their  own  side  and  would 
make  enemies.  This  surprised  them  very  much.  They  w’ere 
absolutely  ignorant  of  the  situation. 

“  ‘  To  make  matters  w-orse,  for  the  first  few'  days  after  tlie 
troops  arrived  in  quantities,  the  drink  shops  were  all  open  all 
day,  and  the  unlovely  results  filled  the  natives  with  disgust  and 
contempt.  It  was  reported,  I  do  not  know  with  w'hat  truth, 
that  drunken  men  had  snatched  the  veils  from  Moslem  women. 
The  tale  was  believed  by  the  natives.  * 

“  ‘  Small  wonder  If  they  hate  and  dread  us.’ 

“  It  is  probably  necessary  to  impress  upon  many  people  in 
this  country  that  the  insolent  outrage  such  as  that  descrihed, 
infiicted  upon  people  In  their  owm  country  by  a  dominant  alien 
147311—20090 


15 


race,  is  about  as  maddening  to  tlio  indigenous  population  as 
Englishmen  found  many  of  the  tales  of  German  brutality  to 
British  prisoners  and  subject  Belgians  during  tbe  war.  The 
blood  boils  In  Egj’pt  perhaps  more  easily  than  in  England,  And 
if  any  of  our  people  continue  to  argue,  as  many  of  them  did  a 
dozen  or  more  years  ago,  that  Egyptians  ought  to  be  too  thank¬ 
ful  for  our  beneticent  rule  to  feel  rebelliously  about  individual 
grievances,  it  will  be  more  necessary  than  ever  to  point  out  that 
such  reasoning  telis  only  of  an  inmirable  moral  blindness.  Old 
chronicles  are  full  of  rebellion  arising  out  of  individual  out¬ 
rages;  and  a  nation  collectively  grateful  to  an  alien  race  for 
ruling  it  is  not  among  the  portents  of  history. 

“  How  government  has  gone  in  Egypt  during  the  war  it  was 
practically  impossible  for  us  at  home  to  know.  It  was  no  time 
for  discussing  reforms;  and  military  rule  had  to  prevail  there 
at  least  as  much  as  here.  But  wlien  the  world  is  intent  upon  a 
peace  settlement  which  is  to  remedy  as  far  as  may  be  all  the 
grievances  of  subjected  peoples,  it  would  be  idle  to  suppose  that 
wild  mutiny  and  stern  repression  (going  to  the  length  of  bomb¬ 
ing  open  villages)  can  go  on  in  Egypt  without  continent  or 
criticism  from  our  allies,  to  say  nothing  of  our  late  enemies. 

“  If  Egypt  were  under  any  rule  but  British,  British  ciitics  in 
general  would  hold  it  a  matter  of  course  that  such  a  mutiny  as 
has  recently  been  quelled  there  must  signify  some  kind  of  mis- 
government.  The  fact  that  we  can  quell  a  mutiny  by  bombing, 
from  aeroplanes,  the  open  villages  of  a  population  which  simply 
can  not  organize  a  military  resistance,  is  no  proof  whatever 
either  of  the  general  badness  of  the  Egyptian  cause  or  the  good¬ 
ness  of  ours. 

“  Recollections  of  the  history  of  Poland  might  suffice  to  move 
thinking  men  in  this  country  to  seek  for  a  policy  which  shall 
not  merely  ‘  hold  down  ’  the  Egyptian  people  now  but  make  it 
unnecossai’y  to  hold  them  down  in  future.  Whatever  the  pa¬ 
triots  in  Parliament  and  the  Northcliffe  press  may  say  for  the 
moment,  this  bombing  of  open  villages  and  flogging  of  rioters 
can  not  improve  our  reputation  either  in  Christendom  or  in  the 
iMoslem  world  ;  and  it  will  not  be  permanently  possible  even  for 
the  patriots  to  keep  up  a  denunciation  of  Germans  for  their  past 
bombing  of  noncombatants  here  while  we  bomb  noncombatants 
in  Egypt.  And  there  is  a  painful  probability  that  such  episodes 
will  recur  unless  we  make  a  new  departure  in  Egyptian  Gov¬ 
ernment. 

“  It  is  presumably  well  known  that  the  present  system  is  one 
embodying  a  few  of  the  forms  without  any  of  the  realities  of 
self-government.  At  every  stage  at  which  those  forms  have 
been  adjusted  the  obvious  purpose  was  to  give  nothing  approach¬ 
ing  real  power  of  any  kind  either  to  the  mass  of  the  people  or 
to  Egyptian  ministers  who  nominally  administered.  For  such 
a  policy  of  emasculation  the  private  defense  has  always  been 
that  neither  ministers  nor  people  can  be  trusted,  the  former  to 
govern  or  the  latter  to  control  them.  It  may  simplify  the  dis¬ 
cussion  to  admit  that  for  this  plea  there  is  some  justitication. 
It  would  be  hard  to  prove  that  the  majority  of  the  electors  in 
Britain  who  polled  at  the  last  general  election  are  well  qualified 
to  vote.  They  are  now  showing  signs  of  a  change  of  feeling 
which  could  hardly  be  paralleled  in  oriental  history  for  quick¬ 
ness  and  completeness.  That  being  so,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed 
147311—20090 


16 


that  the  people  of  Ejrypt  are  properly  fitted  to  exercise  political 
power.  Bill  that  does  uot  alter  the  fact  that  in  Jts  in 

Europe,  the  only  way  in  which  any  population  can  become  fitted 
to  exercise  [lolitical  power  is  to  begin  using  some  degree  of 
political  choice. 

“Certainly  it  is  important  that  some  amount  of  education,  in 
the  ordinary  sense  of  the  term,  should  precede  political  en¬ 
franchisement — though  a  franchise  long  subsisted  with  a  low 
standard  of  poymiar  education  in  our  own  country.  But  Eng¬ 
lishmen  can  not  long  plead  lack  of  education  in  Egypt  as  a 
ground  for  denying  it  any  measure  of  real  self-government, 
when  it  is  by  the  decision  of  the  British  control  that  Egypt 
remains  so  largely  uneducated.  The  policy  of  Lord  Cromer  in 
that  regard  was  fatally  transparent.  Until  within  a  short 
time  of  his  resignation  he  refused  even  the  appeal  of  his  Brit¬ 
ish  (the  controlling)  minister  of  education  to  syiend  more  than 
£200,000  a  year  on  the  schooling  of  a  nation  numbering  some 
twelve  millions.  The  finances  of  Egypt,  he  declared,  did  not 
admit  of  an  expenditure  much  In  excess  of  that.  When  criti¬ 
cism  was  brought  to  bear  in  the  British  Parliament  he  quickly 
di.scovered  that  he  couhi  spend  the  £400.000  his  mlni.ster  had 
asked  for;  and  since  his  day  the  expenditure  has  greatly  in¬ 
creased.  still  without  giving  Egypt  a  good  .systen)  of  schools. 

“The  reforms,  such  as  they  are,  have  been  largely  the  result 
of  native  pre.ssure.  Egyptians  of  all  classes  have  long  agitated 
for  better  and  better  schools,  and  in  particular  for  a  good  mod¬ 
ern  university.  Before  the  advent  of  the  British  control  Egj'pt 
was  to  a  verv  considerable  extent  in  a  state  of  educational 
f)rogre.ss.  A  study  of  the  catalogue  of  the  Khedival  Uliirary  in 
1S)()G  revealed  that  qtiite  a  large  number  of  .scientific  and  other 
works  hail  been  translated  into  Aratiic,  cbiefiy  from  the  French, 
in  tiie  days  of  Ismail  and  his  predecessors.  Yet  wlien  It  was 
urged  UT'on  Lord  Cromer’s  Covernment  that  science  teaching 
sliould  be  Introduced  Into  the  program  of  the  secondary  schonla 
the  official  answer  was  timt  books  for  the  pnryiose  did  tiot 
exist.  As  they  had  existed  a  generation  before,  the  irresi.stible 
conclusion  was  that  the  British  control  had  let  Egypt  retro¬ 
grade  fiom  the  level  reached  under  Moslem  rule.  So  reaction¬ 
ary  was  the  influence  of  the  Cromer  traflitlon  that  only  after 
much  pre.ssure  was  it  made  possible  for  students  of  agriculture 
in  Egypt  to  secure  instruction  in  their  own  language.  The 
Cromer  tradition  was  that  they  must  master  either  French  or 
English  for  the  purpose.  Let  the  reader  try  to  imagine  what 
would  be  said  of  a  British  Covernment  that  refu.sed  to  give 
instruction  in  scientific  agriculture  to  farmers’  sous  save  in  a 
foreign  langniage. 

“  it  is  perfectly  true  that  Lord  Cromer  managed  Egyptian 
finances  well  and  economically,  in  contrast  with  the  extremely 
bad  management  of  the  old  regime.  Probably  no  native  gov¬ 
ernment  could  have  approached  to  the  efficiency,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  rectitude,  of  the  British  control  in  finance.  As  to  all 
that  there  is  no  dispute;  but  it  savors  almost  of  burlesque  to 
argue  that  the  duty  of  the  British  control  toward  Egypt  was 
fulfilled  when  Egypt  was  made  to  pay  full  interest  on  all  its 
debts  and  meet  the  whole  costs,  civil  and  military,  of  the  Brit¬ 
ish  admini.stration.  For  generations  past  it  has  been  an  axiom 
in  our  politics  that  It  is  the  business  of  governments  to  look  to 
147311—20090 


IT 


the  moral  welfare  of  the  nation  as  well  as  to  its  finance,  and 
it  is  upon  tlieir  contributions  to  that  welfare  that  political 
parties  now  mainly  found  their  chiiins  to  sii])port.  The  very 
backwardness  of  Ej?ypt  was  a  ground  for  special  measures  to 
promote  her  moral  progress.  To  make  the  defense  of  British 
rule  consist  in  having  regulated  her  finances  and  Increased  her 
productivity  while  leaving  her  more  backward  than  ever  in  the 
elements  of  qualification  for  self-government  was  to  discredit 
the  cause  that  was  defended.  The  obvious  answer  of  every  im¬ 
partial  foreigner  to  such  a  plea  would  be;  ‘You  claim  credit 
and  gratitude  for  having  secured  the  safe  payment  of  your  own 
bondholders,  in  whose  interest  you  originally  entered  Egypt. 
Orderly  government  was  essential  to  that.  To  earn  credit  and 
gratitude  you  must  do  a  good  deal  more.  You  must  raise  tlie 
levels  of  life  for  the  people  of  Eg>’pt  as  you  confessedly  seek  to 
raise  them  for  your  people  at  home.  And  you  must  know — 
what  nation  can  know  better? — that  a  people  declared  unlit  to 
manage  their  own  affairs  are  thereby  pronounced  low  in  the 
human  scale.’ 

“  It  Is.  to  say  the  least,  unfortunate  for  the  British  Govern¬ 
ment  that  such  an  outbreak  in  Egypt  shouM  follow  immediately 
on  the  close  of  the  World  War,  wiien  ‘self-determination  for 
subject  races’  passes  for  a  principle  with  the  peace  conference. 
Had  those  responsible  for  the  control  of  Egypt  In  the  past 
sought  to  fulfill  our  old  pledges  with  more  of  good  will  and 
gooil  faith,  we  might  have  escaped  this  unpleasant  emergency, 
though  it  will  doubtless  be  argued  that  Lord  Morley’s  progres¬ 
sive  measures  In  India  did  not  avert  sedition  there  in  1014  and 
later.  But  the  conclusion  come  to  by  responsible  inquirers  as 
regards  India  is  tdiviously  still  more  compulsive  as  regards 
Egypt.  Our  duty  to  prefuire  that  country  bir  .self-government 
has  been  again  and  again  otiicially  avowed  from  the  time  of  i>ur 
first  entrance;  and  those  who  thitdt  we  can  forever  go  on  sim¬ 
ply  repressing  discontent  and  maintaining  the  status  quo  are 
plainly  unteachahle  by  events.  If  the  British  control  does  not 
get  newly  into  touch  with  Intelligent  native  opinion,  the  situa¬ 
tion  will  Infallibly  go  from  laid  to  worse,  and  this  in  the  eyes 
of  a  world  newly  critical  of  ‘Imperialism.’  That  long-vaunted 
ideal  has  sttmewhat  rapidly  become  a  term  of  censure  for 
whole  nations. 

“  We  shall  be  faced,  as  a  matter  of  course,  with  the  regulation 
formula  that  there  can  he  no  talk  of  concessions  to  a  people 
who  have  been  recently  in  rebellion.  The  Bussltm  bureaucra<‘,v 
u.sed  to  talk  in  that  fashion,  and  we  have  seen  the  outcome.  If 
tho.se  respon.slhle  for  British  rule  in  EgyiU  have  In  any  degree 
learned  the  lesson,  tlu'.v  will  as  soon  as  pos.sible  set  about  secur¬ 
ing  native  support  by  taking  natives  into  council  ;  by  giving  room 
for  real  initiative  to  the  nominal  Egyptian  ministers,  who  me.st 
know  a  good  deal  more  ahotit  Egypt  than  do  more  than  u  few 
of  the  British  bureaucracy  there,  civil  or  military;  and  by  giv¬ 
ing  some  reality  to  the  form  of  self-government  .which  thus  far 
has  been  allowed  to  count  for  nest  to  nothing  in  Egyptian 
politics.  Before  the  war  there  were  chronic  and  bitter  com¬ 
plaints  about  the  disregard  of  native  wishes,  as  expres.sed  by 
the  elected  represent  a  tive.s,  in  regard  to  matters  of  a<lmlidsrra- 
tion  nearly  concerning  Egyptian  welfare.  TMiring  the  war  there, 
as  here,  must  have  been  the  possible  minimum  of  consultation 
147311— 200a0 


18 


of  the  people.  Perhaps  what  has  happened  in  the  English  by- 
elections  within  the  last  month  or  two  may  sulFice  to  suggest 
to  the  British  Government  that  the  sooner  it  resumes  touch 
with  public  opinion  everywhere  the  better  it  will  be  for  na¬ 
tional  stability,  to  say  nothing  of  the  stability  of  the  ministry, 
Egyptian  mutiny  is  only  the  nonconstitutional  version  of  tho 
dissatisfaction  that  expresses  itself  In  elections  in  the  constitu¬ 
tional  country.  And,  to  put  the  case  at  its  lowest,  the  safe 
course  is  to  set  about  making  Egypt  constitutional. 

“  J.  M,  Robertson.” 

"  Cnpt.  Wedgwood  Bonn,  in  the  House  of  Commons  on  May 
15,  initiated  a  debate  on  the  state  of  affairs  in  Egypt.  Among 
other  things,  he  said : 

“  ‘  It  was  not  too  nnich  to  say  that  the  reason  for  the  calm¬ 
ness  in  Egypt,  even  when  the  Turks  were  successful  and  liad 
overrun  the  Sinai  Peninsula,  was  that  the  Egyptians  trusted 
that  the  assistance  they  had  rendered  to  the  Empire  in  the  war 
would  not  be  permitted  to  interfere  with  tlie  satisfaction  of 
their  legitimate  aspirations.  *«■>!< 

“  ‘  The  peace  that  had  reigned  in  1914,  because  there  was 
trust,  was  converted  by  somebody  in  1919,  when  there  was  dis- 
nppointmet)t,  into  a  national  insurrection.  *  *  *  The  unrest 

among  that  large,  busy,  and  influential  class  of  people  was 
caused  by  the  fact  that  changes  were  in  the  air  and  nobody 
had  been  consulted.  The  underlying  cause  was  that  the  status 
of  Egypt  had  been  altered.’ 

“Mr.  Spoor  (Bishop  Auckland)  said  in  the  House  of  Com¬ 
mons  on  the  same  day  : 

“  ‘  The  situation  in  Egypt  appeared  to  have  been  aggravated 
enormously  because  Egypt  was  under  military  control,  and  mili¬ 
tary  control  of  a  very  short-sighted  kind.  The  methods  of  gov¬ 
erning  Egj-pt  had  become  more  and  more  military  ;  and  in  re¬ 
gard  to  the  censorship  of  information  which  was  allowed  to  be 
sent  from  that  country,  it  was  interesting  to  note  tJiat  the  Times 
asserted  ever  since  1914  it  had  been  the  most  inept  and  most 
savagely  ruthless  censorship  in  any  country  under  British  con¬ 
trol. 

“‘There  were  facts  which  could  be  thoroughly  well  au¬ 
thenticated  of  atrocities  of  the  most  extreme  kind  that  had 
bei'n  committed  with  the  full  sanction  of  our  own  military  au¬ 
thorities.  *  *  *  The  allegation  (of  atrocities)  had  become 

so  general,  not  only  in  this  country  but  throughout  Europe, 
that  it  was  high  time  an  inquiry  was  held.’ 

FRENCH  VIEWS. 

[Speech  of  M.  Goiide,  of  the  French  Ch.Tml)er  of  Deputies,  nt  the  sitting 
of  Sept.  4,  1919.  Transiatecl  from  Le  JournaJ  Offlciel.] 

“  M.  Goude:  In  his  speech  of  yesterday  M.  Franklin-Boullon 
said  that  under  the  appearance  of  ‘  no  compromise  ’  M.  Clemen- 
ceau  had  surrendei-ed  on  every  point. 

“  I  will  try  to  show  that  the  president  of  the  council  (prime 
minister)  at  any  rate  adopted  these  tactics  when  it  came  to 
settling  a  question  that  he  understands  thoroughly,  a  question 
often  discussed  from  this  tribune  and  upon  which  the  prime 
minister  has  often  spoken. 

147811 — 20090 


19 

“Article  147  of  the  treaty  submitted  to  us  for  ratification 
says : 

“  ‘  Germany  declares  that  she  recognizes  the  proteetorate 
proclaimed  over  Egypt  by  Great  Britain  on  the  18th  of  Decem¬ 
ber,  1914.’ 

“This  means  that  Egypt  is  placed  under  the  protectorate  of 
England  without  this  agreement  having  ever  been  ratified  by 
Parliament.  Neither  in  the  treaty  of  peace  nor  in  the  report  of 
M.  Maurice  Long  has  one  dared  to  directly  approach  this  ques- 
ti<m ;  it  is  well  known  that  it  is  a  thorny  one  and  that  it  is 
absolutely  contrary  to  all  the  principles  laid  down  by  the  En¬ 
tente  Governments  during  the  cour.se  of  the  war. 

“  It  is  known  that  at  the  pre.sent  moment — in  spite  of  their 
appeals  to  all  the  parliaments  and  all  the  politicians  of  the 
Entente — a  iieople  are  being  placed  under  the  domination  of 
another  people.  This  is  being  done  in  nn  underhand  way. 
We  are  not  asked  at  first — we  the  French  Ghamher — to  ratify 
an  agreement  recognizing  the  protectorate  deelare<l  by  England 
over  Egypt  in  1914,  but  we  are  told:  ‘We  are  comiielling  Ger¬ 
many  to  recognize  the  protectorate  proclaimed  by  England  over 
Egypt.’ 

“The  question  is  brought  up,  I  repeat,  in  an  underhand 
way,  because  it  is  known  that  if  the  sole  que.stion  of  the  English 
protectorate  In  Egypt  wa.s  brought  before  Farliament  a  great 
debate  would  spring  up.  and  I  am  convinced  that  If  this  que.stion 
was  the  only  one  under  discussion  before  you  such  a  project  of 
the  treaty  would  never  be  approved.  I  therefore  wish  t<»  know 
and  I  ask  for  what  rea.sons  the  French  Government  thinks  it 
right  to  place  under  English  domination  the  Egyptian  people, 
who  protest  with  all  their  might  and  all  their  energy,  as  1  will 
show. 

“  Is  It  not  well  known  that  Egypt  has  always  shown  its  de¬ 
termination  to  be  independent?  Is  it  not  well  known  that  it  is 
worthy  of  this  independence? 

The  prime  minister  him.self  has  vigorously  defended  the  dig¬ 
nity  of  Egypt.  He  knows,  as  we  do,  that  the  production  of 
Egypt  supports  ite  1 6, 000, 000  of  Inhabitants,  including  Egyptians 
and  Soudanese:  that  almost  all  the  landed  property  belongs 
to  Egyptians;  that  its  farms  are  cultivated  by  native-born  sub¬ 
jects  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others;  that  this  country  had  in 
1913  a  foreign  commerce  amounting  in  value  to  12,000,000,000 
francij  (about  $2,400,000,000)  ;  that  the  national  budget  of 
Egypt  is  800,000,000  francs  (about  $100,000,000)  ;  that  intel¬ 
lectual  Eg.vptians  cultivate  French  traditions;  that  there  exists 
in  this  coTintry  boys’  and  girls’  colleges  in  large  numbers,  as 
well  as  different  high  schools,  where  the  French  language  is 
exclusively  employed,  without  forgetting  the  celebrated  law' 
school. 

“  Fifty  years  ago  the  Khedive  could  declare: 

“  ‘  My  country  is  no  longer  in  Africa.  It  is  a  part  of  Europe,’ 

“  Thirty  yeai's  or  so  ago,  the  prime  minister,  rising  in  this 
tribune  to  defend  Egyptian  independence  as  1  defend  it  to-day, 
declared : 

“  ‘  I  do  not  desire  to  enter  into  ethnographic  consideration  as 
regard  the  FJgyptian  race — this  is  not  the  place  for  it — but 
it  is  certain  that  this  race,  of  which  we  see  some  remarkable 
specimens  amongst  us,  in  our  schools,  is  a  calm  and  docile 
147311—20090 


20 


race — too  docile,  it  uiay  bo  said  at  certain  moments — susceptible 
of  culture  and  application,  an  industrious  race  of  which  surely 
one  has  every  reason  to  expect  much.  No  one  can  stand  up  in 
this  tribune,  no  one  will  come  into  this  Parliament  of  the 
Republic  to  say  that  these  men  are  incapable  of  freeing  them- 
Belves  and  that  we  owe  no  other  duty  to  them,  except  to  govern 
them  with  a  courbash  and  a  cudgel.’ 

“  [  ‘  Hear!  Hear!  ’  at  the  extreme  left.] 

“  Thirty-two  years  ago  the  prime  minister  made  these  declara¬ 
tions.  Since  then,  as  we  know,  European  civilization  has  been 
spreading  itself  more  and  more  in  Egypt,  which  ardently 
desires  to  Europeanize  its  civilization,  which  is  modifying  its 
political  structure,  which  has  extended  the  suffrage  to  all 
citizens,  who  have  attained  their  tw’entieth  year — a  reform  that 
certain  European  nations  might  well  envy. 

“  It  must  be  I'emembered  that  at  the  moment  of  the  declara¬ 
tion  of  war,  on  the  2d  of  August,  1914,  Egyjjt  was  inde¬ 
pendent  under  the  sole  suzerainty  of  the  Sultan  of  Turkey. 
This  suzerainty,  approved  in  1840  by  the  European  powers, 
consisted  in  the  payment  each  year  by  Egypt  of  a  tribute  of 
15,000,000  francs  to  the  Sultan — and  that  was  all.  Having 
done  this,  it  had  an  absolute  right  recognized  by  the  European 
powers,  to  manage  its  own  affairs  according  to  its  fancy  and 
to  have  its  own  constitution.  I  know  well  that  little  by  little 
England,  by  the  foi'ce  of  her  armies,  had  got  hold  of  Egyptian 
Institutions,  that  the  members  of  the  Government  were  hardly 
anything  more  than  English  officials,  and  that  the  President  of 
the  Legislative  Assembly  is  appointed  by  the  Government.  But 
this  was  putting  into  practice  the  formula  against  which  w'o 
are  all  struggling:  ‘Might  is  right.’  England  had  no  precise 
and  express  right  in  Egypt.  The  most  famous  English  poli¬ 
ticians,  the  heads  of  the  Government,  have  said  so  on  several 
occasions,  as,  for  instance,  Gladstone,  wlio  in  the  House  of 
Commons  as  far  back  as  the  23d  of  .Tune,  1SS4,  stated  : 

“  ‘  We  pledge  ourselves  not  to  prolong  our  military  occupation 
In  Egypt  beyond  the  1st  of  .lanuai-y.  1888.’ 

“  It  is  the  same  prime  minister  who  said,  on  the  18th  of  Sep¬ 
tember,  1885 : 

“  ‘  England  ought  to  witlidraw  from  Egypt  as  soon  as  British 
honor  will  permit  of  it.  We  will  never  admit  that  there  can 
be  any  question  of  annexation,  of  a  protectorate,  or  even  of  an 
indefinite  prolongation  of  the  English  occupation,  and  we  re¬ 
pudiate  all  idea  of  any  compensation  whatsoever  for  the  efforts 
and  sacrifices  that  we  have  made  up  to  this  day.  English 
policy  is  founded  on  an  error,  and  what  is  best  to  be  done  in 
a  matter  like  this  is  promptly  to  put  an  cud  to  such  an  inter¬ 
vention.’ 

“  It  is  Lord  Sali.sbury  who  said  on  the  10th  of  June,  1887,  in 
the  House  of  Lords : 

“  ‘  Her  Majesty’s  Government,  by  virtue  of  its  previous  en¬ 
gagements  and  of  the  rules  of  international  law,  does  not  think 
that  it  can  place  Egypt  under  a  protectorate.  Its  rule  should  be 
limited  to  coming  to  an  understanding  with  the  Porte  to  defend 
the  interests  of  the  Khedive  against  political  calamities  and  to 
main  the  statu  quo  in  the  valley  of  the  Nile.’ 

“  There  has  been  a  large  number  of  the  declarations,  but  to 
shoi’ten  matters  I  will  only  quote  the  one  made  by  Lord  Salis¬ 
bury  in  the  House  of  I.ords  on  the  12th  of  August,  1889: 

147311 — 20090 


21 


“  ‘  We  can  not  proclaim  onr  protectorate  over  E^j^pt  nor  our 
Intention  to  occupy  it  effectively  and  perpetually;  this  would 
amount  to  breaking  the  international  pledges  signed  by  Eng¬ 
land.’ 

“  Such  was  the  state  of  the  question  during  the  occupation. 
In  the  agreement  called  the  ‘  entente  cordiale,’  concluded  in  lVt04 
between  Erance  and  Englanrl,  article  1  begins  as  follows: 

“‘The  Gnvernment  of  His  Rritannic  Majesty  declares  that  it 
has  not  the  intention  to  change  the  political  state  of  Egypt.’ 

“  In  the  course  of  the  dis<-ussion  of  the  Fashoda  affair,  when 
Englanii  asked  me  to  withdraw,  it  was  n(»t  because  the  Siulan 
belonged  or  could  belong  to  England;  It  was  because  of  Eng¬ 
land’s  declaration  that  it  was  Egyptian  territory.  England  has, 
then,  clearly  recognized  on  every  occasion  the  independence  of 
Egypt, 

“  Has  the  country,  which  was  independent  under  the  sole 
suzerainty  of  the  Sultan  atid  under  the  conditions  that  I  have 
precisely  intlicated,  become  less  deserving  of  our  cimstderarion 
during  the  war?  Is  there  any  reason  for  modifying,  by  lowering 
it,  the  political  status  of  Egypt? 

“  You  know  that  Eg.vpt  came  at  once  and  took  her  stand  with 
the  Allie.s.  If  must  not  he  forgotten  that  the  silver  thread  to 
which  I  referred  a  moment  ago  still  hound  it  to  Turkey. 

“  K('fore  Turkey  declared  war  Egypt  placed  itself  at  the  dis¬ 
posal  of  England — «if  the  English  consul  general — hy  sa.ving: 

“‘If  you  will  promise  us  our  conqilete  inde[iendence,  if  the 
Etiglish  armies  undertake  t«»  (|uit  our  country  after  the  war,  we 
will  place  our  tinanclal  resources,  our  jirovisions,  our  arms,  and 
otjr  Sons.  all.  in  fact,  that  we  ftossess,  at  your  entire  di.'^po.sal ; 
we  are  really  to  go  with  yam  to  the  Coutiiient  to  defend  the  inter¬ 
ests  of  the  Allies.’ 

“To  the  offer  thus  made  at  this  moment  England  replied  by  a 
downright  refusal. 

“  Eater  the  situation  gtd  worse.  Turkey,  who  was  suzerain 
over  Egypt,  went  to  w’ar  against  the  Allies.  Egypt  renewed  its 
offer  In  tlie  same  way.  The  Sultan,  he  it  noted,  had  proclaimed 
a  holy  war.  Do  not  forget  that  Egypt  Is  a  Mussulman  country, 
but  a  country  of  send-European  civilization,  where  a  very  lively 
s.vmpathy  for  Europe  exi.st.s.  In  spite  of  the  powerful  effect  that 
the  prochimallon  of  the  holy  war  ttdght  have  on  the  peasant 
masse.s,  who  are  profoundly  Mussulman  in  sentiment,  Eg.vpt, 
attracted  hy  European  culture,  came  to  us  and  said  once  more; 
*  Insure  us  our  independence  after  the  war  and  we  are  with  you, 
body  and  .soul.’ 

“We  have  made  use  of  Egypt;  it  l.s  the  Egyptian  artillery 
which  chei  ked  the  impetus  of  the  Oerman-Turkish  armies  in 
February,  lh15,  when  the.se  armies  tried  to  seize  the  Suez  Canal 
and  to  cut  our  communications.  Egypt  fiut  its  cotton  at  the 
disposal  of  Eurojte.  Eater  on,  in  face  of  the  necessity  of  grow¬ 
ing  wheat,  it  abandoned  the  profitable  production  of  cotton  in 
order  to  cultivate  wheat,  and  it  put  all  its  provisions  at  the 
disposal  of  the  army  of  Salonlca,  vvliich  it  victualed  to  a  great 
extent. 

“  With  a  population  of  13,000,000  of  inhabitants  it  has  placed 
1.200.000  workers  at  the  disimsal  of  the  Entente — a  figure  recog¬ 
nized  as  exact  by  the  English. 

“All  this  Eg.vpt  has  clone  for  the  Entente.  Have  we  now 
the  right  as  a  recompense  for  these  services  to  violate  the  very 
147311 — 200‘J0 


22 


priudples  that  evciyone  here  invokes,  the  principles  which 
have  been  laid  down  with  precision  by  President  Wilson,  when, 
for  instance,  he  said,  ‘  Peoples  ought  not  he  passed  on  from  one 
sovereignty  to  another  by  an  international  conference  or  an 
arrangement  between  rivais  and  adversaries.’  (’Hear,  hear,’ 
from  several  benches  of  the  extreme  left.]  The  national  aspi¬ 
rations  ought  to  he  respected.  The  peoples  ought  to-day  be  gov¬ 
erned  by  their  own  consent. 

“  Is  it  not  there,  besides  an  international  intere.st,  that 
Eg>’pt  shall  not  he  placed  under  the  domination  of  a  European 
power?  I  have  here  under  my  eyes  a  short  extract  from  a 
speech  of  M.  de  Freycinet,  then  pidine  minister,  who  on  the  27th 
of  November,  1886,  summed  up  admii’ably  the  Egj'ptian  question 
by  saying: 

“  *  Egypt  Is  a  sort  of  crossing  for  the  Old  World.  It  is  a 
junction  between  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa.  It  is  a  higliway 
which  permits  of  the  penetration  of  the  Far  East  possessions. 
Besides,  he  who  is  master  of  Egypt  is  master  to  a  great  extent 
of  the  Mediterranean.  It  is  certain  that  if  a  great  |M)vver  in¬ 
stalled  itself  dehnitely  in  Egj’pt  this  wouhl  be  a  very  heavy 
blow  to  French  Iniluence  in  the  Mediterranean  in  such  a  man¬ 
ner  that,  in  my  estimation,  France  ought  never  reconcile  her¬ 
self  to  the  idea  that  Egjpt  could  definitely  fall  into  the  hands  of 
a  European  power.’  [‘  Hear,  hear,’  from  the  extreme  left.] 

“  This  is  an  undoubted  fact.  And  tlie  (piestion  ought  not  to 
be  examined  merely  from  a  material  standpoint,  hut  also  from 
a  moral  point  of  view.  This  Mussulman  country  into  whicli 
European  civilization  penetrates  little  l)y  little  is  being  driven 
by  us  into  a  corner  where  violence  is  its  only  recourse.  This  is 
henceforth  its  only  political  issue.  We  could,  however,  have 
made  of  Egj’pt  a  point  of  contact  between  eastern  and  western 
civilization.  Hejir,  hear,’  from  the  extreme  left.]  This  is  ex¬ 
actly  what  we  are  not  doing. 

“  Not  only  will  this  country,  which  came  of  its  own  accord 
to  the  Entente,  receive  no  compensation,  but  by  virtue  of  the 
treaty  of  peace  its  bounds  will  be  tightened  and  its  chains 
made  heavier. 

"  *  ■<'  ’*■  in  this  Chamber,  which  during  such  a  long  time 

and  so  very  justly  complained  of  the  Bismarckian  policy,  whiqh 
had  left  in  the  side  of  France  the  painful  scar  of  Alsace- 
Lorraine,  it  is  my  desire  to  declare  that  it  is  helping  to  create 
at  this  moment  another  Alsace-Lorraine. 

“  *  M.  .Iean  Longuet.  Ten  Alsace- Lorraines.’ 

"  ‘  M.  OouDE.  Certainly,  many  Alsace-Lorraines ;  but  this  one 
Is  particularly  characteristic.  ’ 

“  Egypt,  which  during  the  whole  of  the  war  and  in  order  to 
Insure  the  victory  of  the  Allies,  has  endured  without  com¬ 
plaining  the  yoke  of  English  militarism,  which  has  borne  with 
all  the  measures  of  censure,  with  all  the  house  searches,  trial 
sentences,  etc. 

“  ‘  M.  Je.\n  LoNotTET.  With  the  atrocities! 

*“  M.  Gouue.  Atrocities.  Yes;  that  is  the  w’ord.  Egv’^pt  will 
have  no  more  of  that  now.  It  is  in  full  open  revolt.  Yon  are 
aware  that  the  pre.sident  of  the  Egyptian  Council  (Egyptian 
prime  minister),  who,  however.  Is  a  nominee  of  the  English 
and  in  a  cej'tain  sense  an  English  official,  found  the  Egyptian 
people  so  unanimous  against  this  domination  and  the  pro- 
147311— 20090 


23 


tec'torate  that  ho  resigned.  You  know  that  the  officials  who 
are  specially  under  English  authority,  seeing  that  their  written 
protests  were  distorted,  went  out  on  a  general  strike  in  order 
to  emphasize  their  vote  of  independence.  You  are  aware  that 
the  workingmen  are  on  strike;  that  revolts  have  taken  place 
in  the  streets,  in  which  all  classes  and  creeds  have  been  united 
by  a  common  determination  to  win  independence;  that  crowds 
have  been  fii-ed  upon ;  that  there  have  been  massacres ;  and  that 
condemnations  have  been  pronounced.’ 

Here  we  bare  a  university  professor — a  fellow — condemned 
to  penal  servitude  for  life  for  having  made  a  speech  in  favor 
of,  independence.  Here,  again — to  mention  one  case  amongst 
many  others — we  have  Ibrahim  Chalarni  sent  to  the  gallows 
for  having  cried  out  at  the  head  of  a  demonstration,  ‘Liberty, 
equality,  fraternity.’ 

“  ‘  M.  Bakthe.  They  condemn  even  those  who  cry  “  Long  live 
France.” 

”  ‘  M.  Goude.  There  are  thousands  of  examples  of  this  kind. 
To  maintain  its  protectorate,  England  has  at  present  150,000 
soldiers;  she  is  obliged  to  keep  soldiers  in  every  village,  be¬ 
cause  amongst  university  men,  notables,  commercial  men,  fella¬ 
heen,  no  one  vviil  accept  this  domination  at  any  price  and 
everyone  demands  independence.  Thrilling  appeals  have  been 
addressed  to  President  Wil.son,  M.  Clemenceau,  to  the  chair¬ 
man  of  our  peace  commission,  to  the  Italian,  American,  and 
English  Parliaments.’ 

‘‘ ‘  M.  Jean  Lonouet.  They  are  all  deaf.’ 

‘‘ ‘  M.  Goude.  But  at  all  times  and  everywhere  everybody 
remains  deaf  except,  however,  the  American  Senate,  the  com- 
ndssinn  of  whi(±  has  proclaimed  that  Egjpt  ought  to  he  as 
Independent  «»f  English  ditilomacy  as  of  Turkish  diplomacy, 
and  that  It  must  be  left  master  nf  its  own  destinies.’ 

‘‘‘Monsieur  le  President  of  the  Council,’  said  the  orator  ad¬ 
dressing  M.  Clemenceau,  ‘not  only  have  you  abandoned  EgA’pt 
that  you  know  personally,  since,  1  repeat  to  you,  you  have 
ST)oken  very  hard  words  against  our  friends,  the  English, 
from  this  very  tribune  when  this  question  was  under  discus¬ 
sion,  but,  what  is  graver  still — what  seems  to  me  monstrous — 
Is  that  a  peace  conference  brought  together  to  settle  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  entire  world  has,  upon  tlie  orders  of  the  English 
Government,  refused  to  hear  the  Egyptian  delegation,  composed, 
as  you  well  know,  of  the  president  of  the  Chamber  of  Depu¬ 
ties  of  that  country,  of  members  of  Parliament,  of  reprt'senta- 
tlves  of  the  intellectual  classes,  and  of  Egyptian  notables. 
And  by  refusing  to  hear  them  you  have  precipitated  Egypt 
into  the  only  path  left  open  to  it — the  path  of  violence! 

‘‘  I  ask  you,  JM.  the  president  of  the  c(»uucil,  how  can  Egypt 
otherwise  get  out  of  the  situation  in  wdilch  you  have  placed  it? 
Yes;  by  your  attitude  and  your  decl.sions  you  have  decreed  for 
that  country  violence  and  revolution, 

‘‘  You  said  of  Egypt  that  its  inhabitants  were  pacific  and  do¬ 
cile — too  docile,  perhaps.  A  heap  of  iniquities  have  indeed  been 
necessary  to  provoke  the  revolt  of  such  a  peaceable  race. 

‘‘How  is  it  possible  to  better  such  a  situation?  Is  there  any 
means  of  doing  so?  To  whom  should  the  Egyptian  national  rep¬ 
resentatives  apply?  They  already  have  tried  all  the  means  at 
their  disposal. 

147311—20090 


24 


“  The  vice  president  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  and  several 
of  his  colleagues  have  been  imprisoned  simitly  because  they 
wanted  to  come  to  Europe  to  be  heard  i)y  a  delegation  of  the 
peace  conference.  And  never  at  any  single  moment  has  this 
conference  been  willing  to  listen  to  them. 

“  More  than  that,  the  Egyptian  Army  has  been  utilized  during 
the  war  to  occupy  Hedjaz.  The  Egyptian  armies  have  been 
equally  employed  to  occupy  Soudan  and  put  a  stop  to  the  (Jer- 
mau  maneuvers.  To-day  at  the  conference  of  the  peace,  the  King 
of  Hedjaz  is  received — a  King  entirely  of  English  manufacture 
created  In  order  that  England  might  have  an  additional  vote. 
And  this  King,  who  has  just  come  into  existence,  who  repre¬ 
sents  a  country  inhaltired  exclu.sively  by  nomadic  tribes — this 
King  has  been  given  the  right  to  sign  a  treaty  in  which  a  protec¬ 
torate  has  been  imposed  on  the  neighboring  Egyptian  people. 

“  To  this  point  have  you  gone  in  your  injustices  towai-d  Egypt, 
and  yet,  M.  le  president  of  the  council,  when  you  delivered 
the  speech  that  I  have  recalled — on  the  question  of  Egypt  and 
the  Anglo-French  relations — you  concluded  by  saying:  ‘Assuredly 
if  the  end  of  the  Anglo-French  alliance  such  as  it  has  been  de¬ 
picted  to  us  and  such  as  it  would  be  applied  in  practice  was  to 
organize  with  our  aid  the  slavery  of  the  Egyptian  people  and  to 
reduce  them  to  the  position  of  an  inferior  race,  I  would  repudiate 
it  with  the  greatest  energy,  and  1  would  say  to  our  pretended 
allies — to  our  acconq)li<-es,  I  should  cal]  them — that  I  refund 
my  share  of  responsibility  in  such  a  reprehensible  undertaking.’ 

“  Thirty  years  ago  you  expressed  yourself  in  this  manner. 
Since  then  Egypt  has  progressed ;  it  has  come  closer  and  closer 
to  European  civilization.  And  you  want  to-day  to  make  us 
share  the  responsibility  for  the  crime  committed  against  Egypt 
in  the  peace  treaty.  For  my  part,  I  will  not  lend  myself  to  it. 
Besides.  I  am  cei’tain  that  the  English  people  repudiating  Eng¬ 
lish  bourgeois  traditions  [applause  on  some  benches  of  the  ex¬ 
treme  left]  and  united  with  the  French  people,  will  soon  redress 
the  injustice  and  the  crime  that  you  are  committing  by  once  more 
enslaving  Egypt,  [Applause  at  extreme  left.]” 

AMERICAN  VIEWS. 

“  President  Wilson,  in  his  great  address  at  Mount  Vernon,  the 
home  of  Washington,  on  .July  4,  1918,  said  : 

“  ‘  There  can  be  but  one  issue.  The  settlement  must  be  tinal. 
There  can  be  no  compromise.  No  haif-w^ay  decision  w’ould  be  tol¬ 
erable.  No  half-way  decision  is  conceivable.  These  are  the  ends 
for  which  the  associated  peoples  of  the  world  are  fighting,  and 
which  must  be  conceded  them  before  there  can  be  peace.  *  * 
The  settlement  of  every  question,  whether  of  ierritory  or  sover¬ 
eignty  or  economic  arrangement  or  of  political  relationship  upon 
the  basis  of  the  free  acceptance  of  that  settlement  by  the  people 
immediately  concerned  and  not  upon  the  basis  of  the  material 
interest  or  advantage  of  any  other  nation  or  people  which  may 
desire  a  different  settlement  for  the  sake  of  its  own  influence  or 
mastery.  *  *  *  What  we  seek  is  the  reign  of  law  based  upon 
the  consent  of  the  governed  and  sustained  by  the  organized 
opinion  of  mankind.’  [Italics  ours.] 

“  Shall  Egypt,  without  the  consent  of  the  Egyptians,  be  turned 
over  to  England  for  the  sake  of  I4ngland’s  influence  or  mastery? 

147311—20090 


25 


“  In  the  14  points  ndvanced  hy  President  Wilson  we  And  the  fol- 
lovvinjr  pertinent  and  appliesihle  provisions: 

Point  14.  A  general  association  of  nations  most  he  formed 
nnder  specific  covenants  for  the  pnriatse  of  affording  nnirual 
guarantees  of  pnlltirnl  independence  and  territorial  integrity  to 
great  and  ttmall  States  alike.'  (Italics  onrs. ] 

“  This  principle  ai»i)Iie<l  to  Egypt  would  lead  to  a  conclusion  di¬ 
rectly  opposite  to  the  indorsement  of  the  British  seizure  of  Egypt 
ami  destruction  of  Egypt’s  indepenflence. 

“Apidying  the  principle  of  the  s*‘venrh  point  to  Egypt  and  oidy 
gnhstituting  the  word  ‘Egypt’  for  ‘Belgium,’  the  seventh  point 
would  read: 

“  ‘  Egypt,  the  whole  world  will  agree,  miist  he  evacuated  and 
restored  without  any  attempt  to  limit  the  si>vereignty  which  she 
enjoys  in  common  with  all  other  free  nations.  No  other  single 
act  will  serve  as  this  will  serve  to  restore  confidence  among  the 
nations  in  the  laws  which  they  have  themselves  .set  and  deter- 
ndneil  for  the  government  of  their  relations  with  one  anotlier. 
Without  this  healing  act  the  irhale  structure  and  validity  of 
intemational  laic  is  forever  impaired.'  [Italics  ours.J  ” 

THE  QUESTION  OF  EGYPT. 

fProra  the  Washington  Post,  Thursfl.ay,  Oet.  16,  1919.1 

“The  question  of  Egyjit’s  .status  is  hronght  to  the  front  hy 
Bernitor  (  )wkn’s  projnised  reservation — liiteritretafi ve  resolu¬ 
tion — to  the  peace  treaty.  The  fa«  t  that  this  reservation — re.solu- 
tion — is  offered  liy  a  n^-mocfat,  a  strong  siippiuter  of  the  Presi¬ 
dent,  increas**s  the  weight  of  tlie  ohjections  vvidch  are  tinding 
voice  in  the  I’idied  States  against  the  sniitrmg  out  of  the  priti- 
Ciple  of  selfsleteruiiriathm  of  vvell-detitie<l  nathaiallties.  I'resl- 
deTit  W'il.son  gained  the  su[)[)ort  of  liherty-lovi ng  men  throughout 
the  world  when  tie  set  fcu’th  that  princii)le  and  announced  that 
It  would  i»e  made  effei  tive  at  Pari.s.  In  so  far  as  the  conference 
adhercal  to  this  principle  its  work  was  good  and  [lermanent.  and 
wherever  the  principle  was  violated  there  have  been  disijrders 
and  threats  of  war. 

“Senator  Ovvkn’s  proposed  reservation  ( re.solution )  j)rovide3 
that  the  British  protectorate  over  Egypt  shall  be  recognized  as 
merely  a  means  thnmgh  which  tlie  nominal  suzerainty  of 
Turkey  over  Egypt  shall  be  transferred  to  the  Egyi)tian  peo¬ 
ple,  and  shall  not  he  c(»nstrued  to  mean  recognition  hy  tlie 
United  States  of  British  sovereignty  over  the  Egyi»tian  people. 

“The  story  of  British  ascendanc.v  over  Egypt,  now  apparently 
to  cultiminate  in  the  extinction  of  self-government,  is  compaia- 
tively  brief.  The  first  occu[)arion  by  British  troo[is  was  hi  18S2 
and  the  ostensible  object  was  to  suiqire.ss  a  rebellion  against 
tlie  Khedive.  The  occupation  was  to  be  only  temporary,  accord¬ 
ing  to  Premier  Gladstone.  He  declared  that  England  had  given 
‘specilic  and  solemn  pledges  to  the  world’  that  it  would  not 
annex  Egypt,  and  he  added  that  these  pledges  had  earned  for 
ICngland  the  confidence  of  Euro[)e.  Evidently  there  was  no  in¬ 
tention  at  that  time  to  absorb  Egypt.  Yet  the  ti-oops  were  not 
withdrawn,  and  have  never  been  withdrawn,  notwithstanding 
147311 — 20090 


4 


26 


the  persistent  efforts  of  the  Egyptian  people  to  recover  the 
practical  iudepenrlence  they  had  enjoyed. 

“After  the  World  War  began  the  British  Government  re- 
nroved  the  Khedive  and  appointed  another,  as  a  war  measure, 
and  announced  that  Egypt  was  placed  under  a  British  protec¬ 
torate.  The  Egyptian  people  might  have  been  alarmed  by  this 
liad  not  King  George  him.self  sent  a  letter  to  the  Egyptians, 
telling  them  that  the  change  was  but  a  step  toward  the  com¬ 
plete  irulependenee  of  the  people,  and  that  the  protectorate 
would  endure  only  during  the  war  period.  This  reassurance 
was  satisfactory,  and  the  Egyptians  joined  the  Allies  heartily, 
furtiishing  troo[)s  and  large  numbers  of  laborers  who  built  the 
railroads,  pipe  lines,  and  other  military  works  in  Palestine  and 
elsewhere. 

“  When  the  armistice  was  signed  the  Egyptians  believed  the 
day  of  their  national  independence  to  be  at  liattd.  They  sent  a 
commission  to  Paris  to  attend  the  peace  conference  and  to  ar¬ 
range  for  recogidtlon  of  the  independence  of  Egypt.  But  the 
leaders  of  this  commission  were  seized  by  British  officers  and 
depoi’ied  to  Malta,  where  they  were  placed  in  a  German  prison 
camp. 

“  From  that  hour  there  has  been  a  smoldering  volcano  of  re¬ 
volt  in  Egypt.  The  people  have  had  several  serious  clashes  with 
British  soldiers  in  which  machine  guns  have  quelled  popular 
uprisltigs.  In  the  meantime  Great  Britain  has  obtained  from 
Pre.sident  Wilson  a  conditional  recognition  of  the  profe«*torate 
over  Egypt,  and  in  the  peace  treaty  is  a  clause  requiring  Ger-, 
many  to  recogj)lze  the  protectorate. 

The  Intentions  of  Great  Bi'itain  toward  Egypt  are  some¬ 
what  confused  in  the  minds  of  other  Govei-nnients  on  ac*-<mnt  of 
contlicting  statements  issued  by  British  authority.  Whan  the 
Egyptian  questi(m  was  before  the  Senate  CouTinittee  on  Foreign 
Kelations  on  Seqjteinber  2,  the  British  Embassy  here  made  pui> 
lie  a  statement  declaring  that  ‘  the  British  Government  has 
carefully  avoided  destroying  Egyptian  sovereignty,’  and  that  the 
British  flag  in  Egypt  covered  only  British  military  establish¬ 
ments.  But  the  British  foreign  office  a  few  days  later  an¬ 
nounced  that  Great  Britain  laid  succeeded  to  the  sovereignty 
of  Turkey  over  Egypt  and  had  acquired  Egypt  as  spoils  of  war, 
apparently  discarding  the  pledge  of  King  George  and  develop¬ 
ing  a  new  policy  of  permanent  control  over  Egypt. 

“  It  may  be  that  unfortunately  worded  or  unautliorized  state¬ 
ments  by  British  officials  are  at  the  bottom  of  the  public  con¬ 
fusion.  In  that  case  a  cleai'  reaffirmation  of  Britain’s  intention 
to  relinquish  the  protectorate  and  restore  Egypt  to  its  people 
ns  soon  as  the  peace  treaty  is  ratified  would  remove  all  appre¬ 
hension.  In  the  meantime,  taking  the  treaty  as  it  finds  it,  the 
Senate  will  doubtless  adopt  a  reservation  on  the  lines  sug¬ 
gested  by  Senator  Owen,  for  it  is  quite  evident  that  the  United 
States  can  not  consistently  subscribe  to  a  general  principle  of 
self-determination  and  independence  of  nations  and  yet  concur 
in  the  involuntary  absorption  of  Egypt  by  Great  Britain.” 

147311— iiooyo 


27 


EGYPTIAN  BETRAYAL  THE  MOST  HEINOUS  OF 
THE  REACTIONIST  WRONGS. 

[By  George  H.  Shibley.] 

“  The  case  of  tlie  people  of  Egypt  is  a  betrayal  the  most 
heinous  of  the  reactioni.st  wrongs, 

“On  December  21,  1014,  five  mouths  after  the  opening  of  the 
war,  the  British  Liberal  Government,  after  deposing  the  Egyp¬ 
tian  Khedive  and  placing  in  office  a  Sultan  of  their  own  chiH»s- 
ing,  spoke  as  follows  to  the  people  of  Egypt  in  tlie  name  of  the 
King  of  England : 

,  “  ‘1  feel  convinced  that  you  [the  new  Sultan]  will  be  able, 
with  the  cooperation  of  your  ministers  and  the  protectorate  of 
Great  Britain,  to  overcome  all  influences  which  are  seeking  to 
destroy  the  independence  of  Egj'pt  *  *  (London  Times. ) 

“And  yet  tlie  so-called  peace  conference  of  tlie  allied  coalition 
governments  has  actually  refused  to  the  13,000,000  Egyptians 
their  iudetteudence  under  the  protection  of  the  league  of  nations, 
and  the  liritish  Reactionist  iiorernnient  has  shot  down  hundreds 
of  the  Pfgyptians  who  had  the  manhood  to  assert  their  lawfully 
established  rights,  icon  in  part  of  the  lives  and  the  suerifiocs 
of  we  Americans  I 

EGYPT’S  SOVEREIGNTY  VIOLATED. 

[By  Herbert  Adams  Gibbons,  somerirae  fellow  of  Princeton  University, 
aullior  of  the  New  Map  of  Europe,  the  New  Map  of  A.sia,  the  New 
Map  of  Africa,  etc  ] 

“  The  ‘  interpretative  resolutions  ’  pre.sented  by  Senator  Owen 
in  the  Senate  on  Tuesday  greatly  encourage  liberal  tliinkers,  who 
are  dissatisfied  with  tJie  tn^aty  at  Versailles  not  for  party  or 
internal  but  for  international  rea.sons.  Senator  Owen  is  a 
I>emocrat  and  a  loyal  supporter  of  the  administration.  He  makes 
it  clear  that  he  intends  to  vote  for  ratifying  the  treaty  without 
amendment  or  reservation.  But  he  feels  that  the  Senate,  while 
unqualifiedly  accepting  the  document  from  a  technical  point  of 
view,  .should  not  fail  to  let  tlie  world  know  how  the  United 
States  stands  in  regard  to  many  of  its  provisions. 

“  Senator  Owen  wants  the  United  States  to  start  to  work 
immediately  for  a  change  in  the  league  covenant  that  will  give 
freedom  to  subject  States  capable  of  self-government.  Senator 
Owen  mentions  specifically  a  gi’eat  wrong  done  to  a  sovereign 
State  by  the  treaty  of  Versailles. 

“‘That  the  protectorate  which  Germany  recognizes  in  Great 
Britain  over  Egypt,’  reads  the  Owen  resolution,  ‘  is  understood 
to  be  merely  a  means  through  which  the  nominal  suzerainty  of 
Turkey  over  Egypt  shall  be  transformed  to  the  Egyptian  people 
and  shall  not  be  construed  as  a  recognition  by  the  United  States 
in  Great  Britain  of  any  sovereign  rights  over  the  Egj'ptian  peo¬ 
ple  or  as  depriving  the  people  of  Egypt  of  any  right  of  self- 
govornment.’ 

“  This  resolution  is  apt  to  displease  British  public  opinion, 
and  Senator  Owen  may  be  accused  of  indulging  in  the  old 
.sport  of  twisting  the  lion’s  tail.  But  the  accusation  is  un¬ 
founded.  If  we  allowed  our  natural  sentiments  of  affection 
]  47311— 20090 


28 


for  our  kinsmen  overseas  to  keep  us  silent  at  this  time,  Ave 
should  find  them  getting  aAvay  with  a  lot  of  booty — and  our¬ 
selves  unconsciously  or  unthinkingly  giving  sanction  to  high¬ 
handed  and  unjustified  acts  of  opin-ession  and  international 
robbery.  We  can  .not  be  too  strong  in  our  condemnation,  for 
Instance,  of  the  Anglo-I’ersian  treaty,  concluded  secretly  by 
Intimidation  and  bribery  at  the  very  moment  we  are  asked 
to  give  our  cooperation  to  a  society  of  nations  which  Persia 
Is  invited  to  join. 

“  The  case  of  Egypt  stands  out  with  remarkable  clearness.  It 
Is  one  of  the  few  moot  questions  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles 
which  has  not  two  sides.  The  British  protectorate  over  l‘^g.vpt 
Is  an  illegal  action,  not  only  violating  ihe  sovereignty  of  Egypt, 
but  also  the  promises  officially  made  by  generations  of  British 
statesmen.  No  denial  of  this  fact  is  possible.  Open  any  history 
or  tro  to  British  official  correspondence  ptiblished  by  the  British 
foreign  office,  and  you  will  read  the  repeat('d  assurances  given  ^ 

to  the  Egyptians  and  to  the  other  powers  that  Great  Britain 
did  not  intend  to  stay  in  Egypt  and  would  not  establish  a  pro- 
ectoiate  over  Egypt. 

“  The  excuse  for  not  hearing  the  representatives  of  Egypt 
at  the  peace  conference  was  that  the  question  of  Egypt  did  not 
come  within  the  scope  of  the  conference.  If  this  were  valid, 
why  did  the  treaty  of  Versailles  mention  Egypt?  And  what 
right  had  the  powers  to  deal  with  Egyptian  questions  at  all? 

But  Egypt  did  enter  within  the  scope  of  the  conference, 
because  it  was  a  country  whose  status  had  been  clmnged  by  the 
war  and  during  the  war.  Technically,  as  well  as  morally,  the 
Egyptians  bad  as  mueh  right  to  participation  in  the  confer¬ 
ence  as  the  Arabs  of  the  Hedjaz,  and  more  right  to  inde¬ 
pendence.  For  Egypt  was  only  nominally  under  the  suzerainty 
of  Turkey.  By  her  declaration  of  war  against  Turkey,  the 
bond  of  vassalage  Avas  bi'oken.  Ipso  facto  Egjqit  was  inde¬ 
pendent. 

“  But  the  British,  who  Avere  occupying  the  country,  pro¬ 
claimed — without  taking  into  their  confidence  the  Egyptian 
legislative  assembly  or  asking  tbe  conseut  of  the  Egyptian 
people — their  protectorate  over  Egypt.  In  war  what  is  expe¬ 
dient  is  justifiable.  Although  formally  protesting  against  this 
violation  of  pledges  giAmn  and  reiterated,  the  Egyptians  co¬ 
operated  loyally  Avith  the  British  throughout  the  war,  waiting 
for  the  peace  conference  to  deside  upon  the  legality  of  British 
action.  The  prime  minister,  who  consented  to  serve  the  new 
regime  and  who  continued  in  office  throughout  the  war,  told 
me  Avhen  I  Avas  in  Cairo  in  1016  that  he  was  simply  Avaiting 
until  the  end  (  f  the  AAmr  to  hold  the  British  to  their  promises. 

After  the  armistice  Rushdi  Pasha  asked  to  be  allowed  to  go  to 
London  to  take  up  the  matter  of  the  status  of  Egypt  with  the 
British.  Permission  was  refused.  A  rigorous  censorship  was 
maintained.  The  Egyptians  were  held  prisoners  in  their  oAvn 
country. 

“  Rushdi  Pasha  and  the  entire  cabinet  resigned.  A  period  of 
military  dictatorship  began.  When  the  elected  representatiA'es 
of  the  Eg^’ptian  people  asked  for  passports  to  proceed  to  Paris, 
the  British  suddenly  arrested  without  Avarrant  or  Avarning  the 
president  of  the  delegation  anil  three  of  its  leaders  and  deported 
147311—20090 


29 


them  to  Malta.  This  led  to  the  insTirrection  put  down  by  ma¬ 
chine  guns  and  burning  of  villages.  The  Hritisb  used  the  ineang 
of  suppressing  what  they  called  ‘rebellion’  which  the  world 
roundly  condemned  the  Germans  for  in  Belgium.  P'’inally.  force 
of  Egyptian  public  opinion  compelled  the  release  of  the  dele¬ 
gates  and  the  granting  of  passports  for  Baris.  But  the  Egyptian 
delegation,  after  its  arrival  in  Baris,  was  never  heard  by  the 
conference.  The  stipulation  conir>elling  Germany  to  recognize 
the  British  protectorate  was  inserted  in  the  treaty  of  Versailles 
in  defiance  of  the  basic  principle  Bre.sident  Wilson  had  declared 
would  be  followed  in  making  peace.  A  whole  nation  was  rohbod 
I  of  its  sovereignty  and  its  international  status  changed  against 
■its  will  and,  without  having  been  heard,  Egypt  was  Shantung 
over  again. 

“  I  would  not  have  my  readers  think  that  T  am  writing  with¬ 
out  knowledge  of  the  facts.  A  White  Book  has  just  hcen  pub- 
lished  by  the  Egyptian  delegation,  which  contains  documents 
setting  forth  the  lilsrory  of  the  past  year.  The  British  foreign 
office  does  not  deny  the  authenticity  of  these  documents.  As 
for  ttie  men  deported  to  Malta.  I  ktuAV  them  personally.  No 
foreigner,  even  a  Britisher,  who  knows  Egypt  can  deny  that 
these  men  are  honorable  and  capable  and  that  they  represent 
t  the  Eg>i>tian  fieojile.  The  president  of  the  delegation,  Zagloiil 
Basha,  is  one  of  the  best  lovoi)  men  in  Egypt,  a  veti tattle  father 
of  his  peojtle:  Mohammeil  .Mahmoud  Basha.  a  graduate  of  Ox¬ 
ford.  was  formerly  governor  of  the  Suez  Canal.  The  other 
members  of  the  delegation  include  the  Sheik  of  the  .Xralts  of 
tlie  Fayotim,  the  f(»remost  landowners  and  lawyers  in  Egyqtt.  and 
the  librarian  of  the  National  Library.  They  are  the  cream  of 
the  Christian  element  ami  rhe  Greek  Orthodox  anil  GjithoMc  ele¬ 
ment.  as  well  as  the  Mohammedttn  element.  The  Eg.viithms  are 
united,  Irresjiective  of  creed,  in  their  determination  not  to  be 
bartered  from  one  .sovereignty  ft*  another  like  <'atrle.”  *  *  <k 

••On  November  d,  BBS,  Secretary  of  Stale  Lansing  published 
the  foliowing  to  the  world  : 

''‘From,  the  Sterretnry  of  Fttnte  to  the  Miniafer  of  Siritserland, 
in  charye  of  (Jerman  inter'estn  in  the  United  States. 

“  ‘  Department  of  State, 

'"November  3,  1918. 

“‘Sir:  T  have  the  honor  to  request  you  to  transmit  the  fol¬ 
lowing  communication  to  the  German  Government;. 

-•‘‘In  my  note  of  Oclolier  28,  19iS.  I  advised  .vou  that  the 
President  had  transmitted  bis  correspondence  with  the  < Jerman 
antliorlties  to  the  Governments  with  winch  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  is  associated  as  a  belligerent,  with  the  sug¬ 
gestion  that,  if  tiiose  Governments  were  disposed  to  effect  peace 
U|ion  the  terms  and  principles  indicated,  tlieir  military  advi-sers 
and  the  military  advisers  of  the  United  States  lie  asked  to  sub¬ 
mit  to  the  Governments  associated  against  Germany  the  neces¬ 
sary  terms  of  such  armistice  as  would  fully  protect  the  interests 
of  the  peoples  involved  and  insure  to  the  associated  Govern¬ 
ments  the  unrestricted  power  to  safeguard  and  enforce  the  de¬ 
tails  of  the  peace  to  which  tlie  German  Government  had  agreed, 
provided  they  deemed  such  an  armistice  possible  from  the  mili¬ 
tary  point  of  view. 

147311—20090 


30 


“  ‘  The  President  is  now  in  receipt  of  a  memorandum  of  ob- 
Beiwations  by  the  allied  Governments  on  this  correspondence, 
which  is  as  follows; 

‘“The  allied  Governments  have  given  careful  consideration 
to  the  correspondence  which  has  passed  between  the  President 
of  the  United  States  and  the  German  Government.  Subject  to 
the  qualifications  which  follow,  they  declare  their  willingness 
to  make  peace  with  the  Government  of  Germany  on  the  terms 
of  peace  laid  down  in  the  President’s  address  to  Congress  of 
January,  1918,  and  the  principles  of  settlement  enunciated  in 
his  subsequent  addresses.  They  must  point  out,  however,  that 
elause  2,  relating  to  what  is  usually  described  as  the  freedom 
of  the  seas,  is  open  to  various  interpretations,  some  of  which 
they  could  not  accept.  They  must,  therefore,  reserve  to  them- 
Belves  complete  freedom  on  this  subject  when  they  enter  the 
peace  conference. 

“  ‘  “Further,  in  the  conditions  of  peace  laid  down  In  his  ad¬ 
dress  to  Congress  of  January  8,  1918,  the  President  declared 
that  invaded  territories  must  be  restored  as  well  as  evacuated 
and  freed,  and  the  allied  Governments  feel  that  no  doubt  ought 
to  be  allowed  to  exist  as  to  what,  this  provision  Implies.  By  it 
they  understand  that  compensation  will  be  made  by  Germany 
for  all  damage  done  to  the  civilian  population  of  the  Allies  and 
theii-  property  by  the  aggression  of  Germany  by  land,  by  sea, 
and  from  the  air.” 

“  ‘  I  am  instructed  by  the  President  to  say  that  he  is  in  agree¬ 
ment  with  the  interpretation  set  forth  in  the  last  paragraph 
of  the  memorandum  above  quoted.  I  am  further  Instructed  by 
the  President  to  request  you  to  notify  the  German  Government 
that  Marslial  Foch  has  been  authorized  by  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  and  the  Allied  Governments  to  receive  prop¬ 
erly  accredited  representatives  of  the  German  Government, 
and  to  communicate  to  them  the  terms  of  the  armistice. 

“  ‘  Accept,  sir,  with  renewed  assurances  of  my  highest  con¬ 
sideration. 

“‘(Signed)  Robert  Lansing.’ 

“Among  other  things  the  President,  on  January  8,  1918,  in 
his  address  to  Congress  said : 

“  ‘  We  entered  this  war  because  violations  of  right  had 
occurred  which  touched  us  to  the  quick  and  made  the  life  of 
our  own  people  impossible  unless  they  were  corrected  and  the 
world  secured  once  for  all  against  their  recurrence.  What  we 
demand  in  this  war,  therefore,  is  nothing  peculiar  to  ourselves. 
It  is  that  the  world  be  made  fit  and  safe  to  live  in  ;  and  par¬ 
ticularly  that  it  be  made  safe  for  every  peace-loving  nation 
which,  like  our  own,  wishes  to  live  its  own  life,  determine  its 
own  institutions,  be  assured  of  justice  and  fair  dealing  by  the 
other  peoples  of  the  world  as  against  force  and  selfish  aggres¬ 
sion.  All  the  peoples  of  the  world  are  in  effect  partners  in  this 
Interest,  and  for  our  own  part  we  sec  very  clearly  that  unless 
justice  be  done  to  others  it  will  not  be  done  to  us.  The  pro¬ 
gram  of  the  world’s  peace,  therefore,  is  our  ])rogram  ;  and  that 
program,  the  only  possible  program,  as  we  see  it,  is  this: 

“  ‘  I.  Open  covenants  of  peace,  openly  arrived  at,  after  which 
there  shall  be  no  private  international  understandings,  of  any 
147311—20090 


31 

kind  but  diplomacy  shall  proceed  always  frankly  and  In  the 
public  view. 

“‘IT.  Absolute  freedom  of  navigation  upon  the  seas,  outside 
territorial  waters,  alike  in  peace  and  in  war,  except  as  the 
seas  may  be  closed  in  whole  or  in  part  by  international  action 
for  the  enforcement  of  international  covenants. 

“‘III.  The  removal,  so  far  as  possible,  of  all  economic  bar¬ 
riers  and  the  establishment  of  an  equality  of  trade  conditions 
among  all  the  nations  consenting  to  the  peace  and  associating 
themselves  for  'ts  maintenance. 

“‘IV.  Adequate  guarantees  given  and  taken  that  national 
armaments  will  be  reduced  to  the  low’est  point  consistent  with 
domestic  safety, 

“‘V.  A  free,  open-minded,  and  absolutely  impartial  adjust¬ 
ment  of  all  colonial  claims,  based  upon  a  strict  observance  of 
the  principle  that  in  determining  all  such  questions  of  sov'er- 
eignty  the  interests  of  the  populations  concerned  must  have 
equal  weight  with  the  equitable  claims  of  the  Goverumeut 
whose  title  is  to  be  determined. 

“  ‘  VT.  The  evacuation  of  all  Ttnssian  territor.v  and  such  a 
settlenient  of  all  cpiestions  affecting  Russia  as  will  secure  the 
best  and  freest  cooperation  of  the  other  nations  of  the  world 
in  obtaining  for  her  an  unhampered  and  unembarrassed  oppor¬ 
tunity  for  the  independent  determination  of  her  own  political 
development  and  national  policy  and  assure  heCj^of  a  sincere 
welcome  into  the  society  of  free  nations  under  Institutions  of 
her  own  choosing;  and,  more  than  a  welcome,  assistance  also 
of  every  kiml  that  she  may  need  and  may  hers(‘lf  desire.  The 
treati!ient  accorded  Russia  by  her  sister  nations  in  the  months 
to  come  will  he  the  acid  test  of  their  good  will,  pf  their  com¬ 
prehension  of  her  needs  as  distinguished  from  their  own  inter¬ 
ests,  and  of  their  intelligent  and  unselfish  sympathy. 

“  ‘  VII.  Belgium,  the  whole  world  will  agree,  must  he  evacu¬ 
ated  and  restored,  without  any  attempt  to  limit  the  sovereignty 
which  she  enjoys  in  common  with  all  other  free  nations.  No 
other  single  act  will  serve  as  this  will  serve  to  restore  confi¬ 
dence  among  the  nations  in  the  laws  which  they  have  them¬ 
selves  set  and  determined  for  the  government  of  their  rela¬ 
tions  with  one  another.  Without  this  healing  act  the  whole 
structure  and  validity  of  international  law  is  forever  impaired. 

“‘VIII.  All  French  territory  should  be  freed  and  the  invaded 
portions  restored,  and  the  wrong  done  to  France  by  Prussia 
In  1871  in  the  matter  of  Alsace-Lorraine,  which  has  unsettled 
the  peace  of  the  world  for  nearly  50  years,  should  be  righted, 
in  order  that  peace  may  once  more  be  made  secure  in  the 
interest  of  all. 

“  ‘  IX.  A  readjustment  of  the  frontiers  of  Italy  should  be 
effected  along  clearly  recognizable  lines  of  nationality. 

“  ‘  X.  The  peoples  of  Austria-Hungary,  whose  place  among 
the  nations  we  wish  to  see  safeguarded  and  assured,  should  be 
accorded  the  freest  opportunity  of  autonomous  development. 

“  ‘  XI.  Roumania,  Serbia,  and  Montenegro  should  be  evacuated ; 
occupied  territories  restored ;  Serbia  accorded  free  and  secure 
access  to  the  sea;  and  the  relations  of  the  several  Balkan 
States  to  one  another  determined  by  friendly  counsel  along 
historically  established  lines  of  allegiance  and  nationality;  and 
147311 — 20090 


32 


International  guarantees  of  tlie"  political  and  economic  iiide-' 
pendence  and  territorial  integrity  of  tlic  several  Balkan  States 
should  be  entered  into. 

“  ‘  XII.  The  Turkish  portions  of  the  present  Ottoman  Empire 
should  be  assured  a  secure  sovereignty,  but  the  other  nation¬ 
alities  which  are  now  under  Turkish  rule  should  be  assured 
an  undoubted  security  of  life  and  an  absolutely  unmolested 
opportunity  of  autonomous  development,  and  the  Dardanelles 
should  be  permanently  opened  as  a  free  passage  to  the  ships 
and  commerce  of  all  nations  under  international  guarantees. 

“  ‘  XIII.  An  independent  Polish  State  should  be  erected  whieh 
should  Include  the  territories  inhabited  by  indisputably  Polish 
populations,  which  should  be  assured  a  free  and  secure  access  to 
the  sea,  and  whose  political  and  economic  independence  and  ter¬ 
ritory  integrity  should  be  guaranteed  by  international  covenant. 

“‘XIV.  A  general  association  of  nations  must  be  formed 
under  specific  covenants  for  the  purpose  of  affording  mutual 
guaranties  of  political  independence  and  territorial  Integrity 
to  great  and  small  States  alike.’  ’’ 

[Letter  from  King  George  to  the  Snltan  of  Rgypt,  published  In  London 
Times  Dec-ember  21,  1914.] 

*  ♦  ♦  I  f0gl  convinced  that  you  will  be  able,  with  the 
cooperation  of  your  ministers  and  of  the  protectorate  of  Great 
Britain,  to  overcome  all  inlluences  which  are  seeking  to  destroy 
the  independence  of  Egypt  * 

[Cablegram  to  Mahmoud  Pasha,  Shoreham  Hotel,  from  Mahmoud 

Soliinan  Pasha.] 

“  In  an  interview  with  Cairo  newspapers  on  the  22d  instant 
Rushdi  Pasha — who  was  prime  minister  when  the  Khedive  was 
dethroned  by  England  and  a  Sultan  appointed,  and  continued 
throughout  the  war  as  prime  minister  of  Egypt  and  resigned 
toward  the  end  of  May  last — declared  that  he  never  consented 
to  the  “protectorate”  of  Great  Britain  over  Egj’pt,  except  that 
It  was  temporary  and  a  war  measure,  and  that  it  would  disap¬ 
pear  when  the  Allies’  victory  was  complete.  He  asked  England 
to  hear  him  and  to  hear  the  Egyptian  nation  duly  represented 
by  the  Egyptian  delegation.  He  adds  that  Egypt’s  aid  to  Eng¬ 
land  during  the  war  was  immense,  and  that  1,200,000  Egyptians 
served  on  the  allied  side.” 

147311—20000 


o 


